



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



! 1 




iM 



t f 









tu' 



../V . 



s 



^, 



^{ 



lilifflniili II iiiiiiiiil iiiiih iii 1 1 























.-^^ 






^^°^ 






<^> 






%. "' J^ ^ 

,. * « o. O^ '^^ 



"^o. *' 



A 






c^ 



4^"^^ 



.^' 



0' 



^°-;^ 



.^^ ""^ '^ 



V <^ 'o . » - ,G^ "^^ 













.0^ 






V' 



^^< 
^^. 












<?>■ ^ . ^"^^-t ■ay ^ 






'5> 












.0- 






< 



^0 






o > 



^°^*-.. - 






^9^ 
kT 



.^"^ 






V 









C 



0' 



"-^^0^ 



c^ 




<v 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH 



THE STAGE HISTORY OF 
KING RICHARD THE THIRD 



THE STAGE HISTORY 

OF SHAKESPEARE'S 

KING RICHARD THE THIRD 



BY 



\K 



ALICE I; PERRY WOOD, Ph.D. 




i^b fork 
THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1909 

All rights reserved 






Copyright, 1909 
By The Columbia University Press 

Printed from type May, 1909 



SEP 2i '1909 

1 



PRESS OF 
THE NEW ERA PRfNTiNG COMPANY 

Lancaster. Pa. 



This Monograph has been approved by the Department of Eng- 
lish in Columbia University as a contribution to knowledge worthy 

of publication. 

A. H. THORNDIKE, 

Secretary. 



TO 

AND 

Cdarnltn? CH. Binnli 

WITH GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION 



PREFACE 

In the following pages it is my purpose to trace the fortune 
upon the stage of one of the most popular of Shakespeare's 
plays, " The Tragedy of King Richard the Third." In such 
a history, the consideration of the play as literature must be 
entirely subordinated to the exhibition of its capacity for stage 
effectiveness, and its success, deserved or not, with the public. 
For this reason, discussions of text, date and authorship, are 
deemed out of the province of this enquiry. While the mate- 
rials for such a study, especially in the earlier history of the 
play, are scant, it has been my aim to give such records of 
performances as are extant, with the conditions of staging, the 
use of scenery, properties, and costume, the methods of actors, 
especially of those who have taken the principal part, and the 
attitude of the audience in successive periods and under vary- 
ing conditions. Since there is little direct information con- 
cerning the play during the Elizabethan period, I have at- 
tempted to supply this lack in some measure, by an examina- 
tion of the typical plays of the time, with a view to discovering 
the stage conditions which affected the original presentation. 
Having established the prevailing methods of staging by care- 
ful reference to the directions in contemporary plays, and by 
noting the favorite devices, and the management of situations 
similar to those occurring in this play, I have thought it pos- 
sible, by a comparative method, to reconstruct the presentation 
of " Richard the Third " in Shakespeare's time. 

The work naturally falls into well-marked divisions. First, 
the history of the play from its earliest performance to the 
closing of the theatres. The next period extends from the 
opening of the theatres to 1700, a time of general rather than 
particular importance to our subject. With the beginning of 
the eighteenth century, the Gibber version of " Richard the 
Third," the best known of all the adaptations of Shakespeare, 
appeared, and this constitutes the main feature of the history 
of the play during the century. Garrick initiates a new era 
in the history of acting in the mid-eighteenth century and I 
have therefore made his age the beginning of a fourth period. 
This extends through the career of Sir Henry Irving. The 



fortune of " Richard the Third " in America deserves a place 
in the history of this play, both because of its intrinsic interest 
and because of its importance in American theatrical develop- 
ment, and the last chapter therefore gives the main facts of its 
history in this country, from its first performance in 1750, 
through the life-time of Edwin Booth. The study ends with 
such indications of general tendencies in the presentation of 
the play as I have gathered in the course of this investigation. 

While the general purpose is expressed in the opening sen- 
tence of these introductory remarks, it is hoped that a farther 
aim has not been entirely lost sight of, and that this work has 
served to add some slight evidence for the worthier estimation 
of Shakespeare's genius as one that but turned to most signifi- 
cant use the common materials lying close to the hands of all. 

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for many 
courtesies received at the Astor, Lenox and Columbia libraries, 
and my indebtedness to the various members of the English 
department at Columbia University. Especially do I wish to 
thank Professor G. R. Carpenter, whose advice and encourage- 
ment have been invaluable ; Professor W. P. Trent, for helpful 
counsel; Professor W. W. Lawrence, for reading the manu- 
script; Professor Brander Matthews, for reading the manu- 
script and furnishing some data; Professor W. A. Neilson, 
now of Harvard University, at whose suggestion this subject 
was undertaken ; and Professor A. H. Thorndike, whose 
method of procedure I have adopted and who, throughout the 
work, has aided generously with suggestion and criticism. 

A. I. P. W. 

Vassar College, 
December 13, 1908. 



1 

L'opinion generalement etablie sur Richard a pu contribuer au succes de 

la piece qui porte son nom : aucun peut-etre des ouvrages de Shakspeare 
n'est demeure aussi populaire en Angleterre, Les critique ne Font pas en 
general traite aussi favorablement que le public; quelques-uns, entre 
autres Johnson, se sont etonnes de son prodigieux succes ; on pourrait 
s'etonner de leur suprise si Ton ne savait, par experience, que le critique, 
charge de mettre de I'ordre dans les richesses dont la public a joui d'abord 
confusement, s'affectionne quelquefois tellement a cet ordre et surtout a 
la maniere dont il I'a congu, qu'il se laisse facilement induire a condamner 
les beautes auxquelles, dans son systeme, il ne sait pas trouver une place 
convenable. 

GuizoT : Notice sur La Vie et La Mort de Richard III. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I 
Richard the Third in its Relation to Contemporary 

Plays i 

II "^ 
Richard the Third on the Elizabethan Stage 25 

III 
Richard the Third and the Drama of the Restora- 
tion 60 

IV 
The Cibber Version of Richard the Third 'jd 

V 
From Garrick to Irving — 1741-1897 loi 

VI 
Richard the Third in America 134 

VII 

Conclusion 166 

Bibliography 172 

Index 179 



Richard the Third in its Relation to Contemporary 

Plays 

Documentary facts of presentation and stage history — Earlier and con- 
temporary plays — " Richardus Tertius " — " The True Tragedy " — References 
to other plays on the subject — Theatrical conditions in 1593-4 — The close 
relations between dramatic authors tending to produce well-marked types 
— Plays based on the chronicles — Typical situations and general character- 
istics — Influence of Marlowe — " The Spanish Tragedy " — " Richard the 
Third " in reference to these types. 

It is one of the surprises of Shakespearian criticism that 
some of the plays known to have been on the stage for three 
hundred years seem to have left so little trace in the annals of 
stage history or in contemporary literature. The play of 
" Richard the Third " offers slight reward to the student 
searching for documentary facts, merely a few references, 
sometimes vague, sometimes ambiguous, to what is conceded 
to have been one of the most popular of Shakespeare's plays. 
What is surely known may be given very briefly. 

While no definite evidence exists, authorities generally agree 
in fixing the date of " Richard the Third " at 1593-4.^ We 
learn from the title page of the first Quarto, 1597, that it was 
performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men, one of the leading 

^ Such as Ward, Fleay, The Irving Shakespeare, The Temple and Cam- 
bridge editions, etc. The reasons, so far as based upon the publication 
of The True Tragedy, are of little weight, as many plays were printed in 
1594-S owing to the breaking up of the companies. Surer indications are 
the workmanship and the traces of Marlowe. Halliwell-Phillipps puts the 
date at 1597, because of the phrase "lately acted" on the Quarto as 
referring to the Lord Chamberlain's Company. The company would 
obviously be designated by its name at the time, no matter what it may 
have been called when the play first appeared. The opinions of the leading 
authorities on the question of the date may be found on pages 451-6 of the 
New Variorum edition of Richard the Third, which has appeared since this 
was written. 

2 1 



companies of the day. That it was popular and fell in with 
the taste of the day, we gather from the constant demands for 
republication,^ as well from frequent allusions. It is first men- 
tioned in John Weever's "Epigram Ad Gulielmum Shakes- 
peare,"^ 1595, where, among other characters of " honie-tong'd 
Shakespeare," he names Richard, probably, though not surely, 
Richard the Third. In " Epigrams and Elegies " by J. B. and 
C. M., supposed to belong to 1596, a part of Richard's speech 
is imitated.* " Richard the Third " is among the tragedies 
commended by Meres in " Palladis Tamia," 1598. Richard's 
line, 

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse ! 

found many imitators.^ In " England's Parnassus," 1600, 

= Wise published the Quartos of 1597, 1598 and 1602. The copyright 
was then sold to Matthew Law who republished the play in 1605, 1612, 
1622, 1629 and 1634. In 1623 it appeared in the Folio. There were a 
larger number of editions of Richard the Third before 1640 than of any 
other of Shakespeare's plays. 

^ Honie-tong'd Shakespeare, when I saw thine issue, 
I swore Apollo got them and none other. 



Rose-checkt Adonis with his amber tresses, 
Faire fire-hot Venus charming him to love her, 
Chaste Lucretia virgine-like her dresses, 
Prowd lust-stung Tarquine seeking still to prove her ; 
Romea Richard ; more, whose names I know not, 
Their sugred tongues, and power attractive beuty 
Say they are Saints, althogh that Sts they show not, 
For thousands vowes to them subjective dutie. 

* I am not fashioned for these amorous times. 
To court thy beauty with lascivious rhymes ; 
I cannot dally, caper, dance and sing, 
Oiling my saint with supple something. 

Compare Richard the Third, Act I, Scene i, lines 14-17. 
° Marston : Scourge of Villainie, 1598. 

A man, a man, a kingdom for a man ! 
Chapman: Eastward Hoe, 1605. 

A boate, a boate, a boate, a full hundred marks for a boate. 
Marston: Parasitaster, or the Fawne, 1606. 

A f oole, a foole, a foole, my coxcombe for a foole ! 
Marston: What you Will, 1607. 

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ! 



there are five quotations from " Richard the Third." Sir 
Wilham CornwalHs, in 1600, remonstrated against the popular 
conception of Richard as gained from the plays. In 1601, in 
" The Return from Parnassus," Part I, Act IV, Scene 3, 
Burbage and Kempe are represented as teaching students to 
act and as using this play for their text.^ Manningham, in his 
"Diary" under date of March 13, 1601, tells an anecdote of 
Burbage and Shakespeare at a performance of " Richard the 
Third." Barnabe Barnes, in " Four Bookes of Office," 1606, 
and Nicholas Breton in " Good and Badde," 1616, both refer 
to the popularity of " Richard the Third " with vulgar audi- 
ences. The allusion most frequently quoted occurs somewhat 
later in Bishop Corbet's " Iter Boreale " of about 1618, where 
Burbage is inseparably identified with the part of Richard the 
Third.'' In the same year, in " Funeral Elegy " on Burbage, 
it is said, 

And Crookback, as befits, shall cease to live. 

Brathwaite : Strappado for the Divell, 1615. 

A horse, a kingdom for a horse. 
Heywood : Iron Age, 1611. 
Syn. A horse, a horse. 

Pyn. Ten kingdoms for a horse to enter Troy. 
Beaumont and Fletcher: Little French Lawyer, c. 1620. 

My kingdom for a sword. 
Heywood: Edward the Fourth, 1600 pub. 
A staff, a staff, 

A thousand crowns for a staff ! 
Peele : The Battle of Alcazar, 1594. 
A horse, a horse, villain, a horse. 
This last may antedate Richard the Third and therefore be the original 
line. Compare with these Shakespeare's own imitation in the Prologue of 
Henry the Fifth, 

A kingdom for stage. 
'Burbage. I like your face, and the proportion of your body for 
Richard III ; I pray. Master Philomusus let me see you 
act a little of it. 
Phil. " Now is the winter of our discontent 

Made glorious summer by the sun of York." 
Bur. Very well, I assure you. 

^ For when he would have sayed " King Richard dyed," 
And called — " a horse, a horse ! " — he Burbage cryed. 



We find later references in Nahum Tate's " Loyal General," 
1680,^ and in Milton's " Eikonoclastes," 1690,® and reminis- 
cences of lines from " Richard the Third " appeared in various 
poems for fifty years after the play. 

These allusions/" while scanty, show that the figure of 
Richard the Third was a familiar one,^^ that it appealed to the 
imagination in its portrayal of an arch-villain, and that the 
greatest actor of the time, Burbage, was identified with it. 
With the one record of a performance, given in Sir Henry 
Herbert's Ofiice Book under date of 1633,^^ these references 
comprise all the direct information we possess prior to the 
Restoration, of " Richard the Third " as a stage play. What 
further light we may throw upon its presentation must come 
from a consideration of the theatrical and dramatic situation 
of the time. 

Before considering this, however, it is necessary to turn for 
a moment to the earlier plays on the subject.^^ " Richard the 

* In the dedication to Edward Tayler, he speaks of Shakespeare's power 
in delineating Richard the Third's " Person, and Cruel Practices " and 
gives quotations to illustrate. 

' Shakespeare " introduces the Person of Richard the Third, speaking in 
as high a strain of Piety, and mortification, as is uttered in any passage of 
this Book (Eikon Basilike) ; and sometimes to the same seise and pur- 
pose with some words in this Place, etc." There is a reference to Richard 
the Third in Gayton's Festivous Notes on Don Quixote, 1654, ^^ addition 
to these given. 

'" See for many of these Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse, edited by 
C. M. Ingleby, revised by L. T. Smith, published by The New Shakespeare 
Society, Series IV, number 2, 1879. 

" C. B., the author of a poem. The Ghost of Richard III, explains that 
he does not enlarge on the story of Richard because it is " made so common 
in plays and so notorious among all men." 

" " On Saterday the 1 7th of Novemb being the Queene's birthday, 
Richarde the Thirde was acted by the K. players at St. James, wher the 
king and queene were present." 

" This subject as it has appeared in chronicle, poem and play, has been 
fully treated by Mr. G. B. Churchill in Richard the Third up to Shakespeare, 
and to that I am greatly indebted. He shows that before, and con- 
temporary with its appearance on the stage, the subject was popular in 
several forms. In ballads there are extant The Song of Lady Bessie, 
dating from about 1500, The Tragical Report of King Richard the Third, 



Third " on the stage dates from the appearance in 1579, of the 
Latin play, " Richardus Tertius," by Dr. Thomas Legge, Vice 
Chancellor of Cambridge and Master of Caius College. This 
is said to have been elaborately staged, and was very popular 
with academic audiences. There are some, though rather 
doubtful, evidences that it was repeated in 1582 and in 1592, 
on the former date before the Earl of Essex, on the latter 
before the Queen,^* and Henry Lacey, in 1586, made a tran- 
script of it for presentation at Trinity College, Cambridge. 
An indication of its popularity lies in the large number of 
manuscripts in existence, of which there are no fewer than 
ten; three at Cambridge, two in the British Museum, one in 
Bodleian, and one in private hands.^^ It is to this play that 

1586, Deloney's Lamentation of Jane Shore in The Garland of Good-Will 
of the same time. In The Mirour for Magistrates, compiled as early as 
1554, but first published in 1559, there were nine poems concerned with 
the story of Richard the Third in the first four editions. These were the 
poems on Henry the Sixth, on the Duke of Clarence and on Edward the 
Fourth, in the 1559 edition; in the edition of 1563 were added Sir Anthony 
Woodville, Lord Rivers, Lord Hastings, The Complaint of Henrie, Duke 
of Buckingham by Thomas Sackville, Collingborne by Baldwin, Richard 
Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester by Segar, and Shore's Wife by Thomas 
Churchyard. In 1593, contemporary with Richard the Third, two poems 
on the subject, Beawtie dishonoured written under the title of Shore's 
wife by Anthony Chute, and Licia or Poems of Love, in Honour of the 
admirable and singular vertues of his Lady, to the imitation of the best 
Latin poets and others. Whereunto is added the Rising to the Crowne of 
Richard the third, by Giles Fletcher. Michael Drayton's Heroicall Epistles 
were published in 1599, but were probably written earlier. Those related 
to this subject are, Queene Margaret to William de-la-Poole, Duke of 
Suffolk, Edward IV to Shore's Wife, and The Epistle of Shore's Wife to 
King Edward the fourth. Less popular versions of the story were to be 
found in Sir Thomas Mere's History of King Richard III, which appeared 
in English about 1513 with an earlier Latin version, in Polydore Vergil's 
Historia AnglicB, 1534, in John Rastell's Pastime of People or the Chronicles 
of Divers Realms, 1529, and in such accounts as Hall's, 1548, Grafton's, 
1562, and Holinshed's, 1578, and in the work of the contemporary popular 
chronicler Stowe, whose accounts date 1561 and 1580. 

" Churchill, op. cit., page 267. See also Fuller's Worthies, Norwich, 
edition of 1840, Vol. II, page 491. 

^° Ditto, page 269. 



6 

Sir John Harrington refers in his " Apologia of Poetrie," 1591, 
where he says : 

" For tragedies, to omit other famous tragedies, that which was played 
at St. John's in Cambridge, of Richard the Third, would move, I thinke, 
Phalaris the tyrant, and terrifie all tyrannous minded men from following 
their foolish ambitious humours, seeing how his ambition made him kill 
his brother, his nephews, his wife, beside infinit others, and last of all, 
after a short and troublesome raigne, to end his miserable life, and to 
have his body harried after his death." 

This opinion of the " convicting " power of the play is quoted 
by Thomas Hey wood in his " Apology for Actors," 1612, and 
Meres in " Palladis Tamia," 1598, includes Dr. Legge, of Cam- 
bridge, among " our best for Tragedy," mentioning his " two 
famous tragedies" of "Richard the Third" and "The De- 
struction of Jerusalem. "^"^ The play follows the story as 
found in Polydore Vergil and More with slight variations for 
the sake of bringing it into the Senecan mould, as the personal 
wooing of Anne by Richard and the extension of the scenes 
with the counsellors. 

Mr. Churchill has pointed out that, while the choice of the 
subject of Richard the Third was probably the result of its 
adaptability to the Senecan idea of tragedy, this play neverthe- 
less, in treating English material, was the precursor, if not the 
" direct incitement to that dramatizing from the chronicles of 
the careers of English monarchs which established a national 
historical drama in popular form upon the popular stage."^'^ 
Since this was a university play and in Latin, it was known to 
a limited, but nevertheless an important audience, for Mar- 
lowe, Lodge, Peele, and Greene were Cambridge men and must 
have been familiar with it. This first chronicle play must, 
therefore, have undoubtedly helped to establish a tradition for 
later forms. ^^ 

^^ Allusion to this play is made by Thomas Nash in Have with you to 
Saffron Walden, 1596, where he tells of the mistake of an actor, who, 
" in the Latine tragedie of King Richard cries Ad urbs, ad urbs, ad urbs 
when his whole part was no more than Urbs, urbs, ad arma, ad arma." 
Churchill, op. cit., page 265. 

" Ditto, page 272. 

^^ A detailed analysis of the play is given by Mr. Churchill, op. cit., pages 
280-375. 



" Richard the Third " soon became a favorite on the pubHc 
stage. On June 19, 1594, Thomas Creede entered on the 
Stationers' Register " an enterlude " which was pubHshed the 
same year under the title of " The True Tragedy of Richard 
the Third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the 
Fourth, with the smothering of the twoo yoong Princes in the 
Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore's wife, an example 
for all wicked women. And lastly the conjunction and join- 
ing of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was 
playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players." This play seems to 
have been the outcome of the rivalry between the Queen's 
Company at The Theatre and Pembroke's Men at The Cur- 
tain, in an attempt to supply the popular demand for a con- 
tinuation of the subject of the Lancastrian and Yorkist con- 
flict already set forth in the play given by the Queen's Com- 
pany, and called " The First Part of the Contention betwixt 
the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the 
death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and 
death of the Duke of Suffolk, and the Tragicall end of the 
proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of 
Jacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the 
Crowne."^^ A continuation of this play, the second part of 
" The Contention," also called " The True Tragedy of the 
Duke of Yorke," was given a little later by the Earle of Pem- 
broke's Men, a rival company, which still later probably acted 
the third part of " Henry the Sixth," evidently based on this 
play. While these are not preeminently dealing with Richard 
the Third, his character is prominent and suggests the possi- 
bilities which were later carried out in making him protagonist 
in the play given by the Queen's Men. This was in competi- 
tion, apparently, with " The Second Contention," and in it we 
find the typical situations that have distinguished the plays on 
Richard the Third throughout. 

It is not to be supposed that The Rose was without a play 
upon a subject that, according to Thomas Nash, filled both 

" F. G. Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, Vol. II, 
page 315. Also Churchill, op. cit., page 485. Fleay dates this play about 
1589. 



■ 8 

houses as did those on the Hfe of King Henry the Sixth.^" 
In Henslowe's Diary, in the account of the Earl of Sussex' 
Men, we find: 

" Rd at buckingam, the 30 of desembr 1593 lix'. 

" " " " I " Jenewary 1593 Iviii" 

" " " " 10 " " " xxii^ 

" " " " 27 " " " xviii^ " ^ 

This play of " Buckingham " may have been a version of the 
story of Richard the Third with the emphasis upon this charac- 
ter, his " rising " and overthrow offering a tragic theme almost 
as notable as that of Richard himself. There is a possibility 
also^^ that the entries for December 31, and January 16, 1593, 
in regard to a play of " Richard the confeser " may be on the 
same subject, or at least connected with it. 

It is seen, therefore, that when the play of " Richard the 
Third," which we attribute to Shakespeare,^^ appeared, prob- 
ably at The Theatre,^* and probably in the season of 1593-4, 
there were several plays in the possession of companies on the 
same subject, and perhaps more than one actually on the 
boards at the same time. 

The theatrical situation in London in 1593-4 should be 
noticed. The old Queen's Company had been broken up, the 
children's companies, for one reason or another, had been 

^ " How would it have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to 
think that after he had been two hundred years in his tomb he should 
triumph again on the stage, and have his bones embalmed with the tears 
of ten thousand spectators (at least at several times) who, in the tragedian 
that represents his person, behold him fresh bleeding." Pierce Penniless, 
1592. 

^Shakespeare Society Publications, 1845, pages 31—3. 

^^ According to J. P. Collier's edition of Henslowe's Diary, Shakespeare 
Society Publications, 1845, page 31. 

^ F. G. Fleay {Life of Shakespeare, pages 118 and 276-7) believes that 
Marlowe left this play incomplete at his death, and that it was finished by 
Shakespeare. Halliwell-Phillips {Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 
page 94) thinks it is essentially Shakespeare's, but contains remnants of an 
older play. J. R. Lowell, on aesthetic grounds, denies that Shakespeare 
did more than to remodel an old play. See Latest Literary Essays and 
Addresses. 

^ Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 154. 



9 

inhibited, not to appear in public again until 1596, and from 
the large number of players' companies of the earlier time, 
three had come to be recognized as the only ones authorized 
within the liberties of the city, namely, Lord Strange's, later 
the Lord Chamberlain's, the Earl of Pembroke's, and the Lord 
Admiral's. By this time also, from the six public playing 
places open two years before, only three were now maintained, 
The Theatre, The Curtain, and The Rose. To these, however, 
must be added the place, theatre or not, at Newington Butts,^^ 
which was used in 1594 by the Chamberlain's and Admiral's 
men. The occupation of these theatres by the different com- 
panies is hard to follow, for a company shifted frequently 
from one to another. Thus, according to Mr. Fleay's re- 
searches, Pembroke's Company was at The Curtain from 1589 
to 1597, and at intervals from 1597 to 1600, when they dis- 
appear, they joined with the Admiral's Men at The Rose. The 
Chamberlain's Company, of most interest to us, also had 
changing fortunes about this time. Their home was The 
Theatre, but in June of 1594 we find them playing in alterna- 
tion with the Admiral's Men at Newington Butts, and under 
the management of Henslowe, of The Rose. In October they 
were back at The Theatre, and it is here that " Richard the 
Third " was probably produced. Plays as well as companies 
were shifted about. Thus, the London theatrical season of 
1593 had been abruptly ended in April by the plague, and the 
houses remained closed until Christmas. In this time Pem- 
broke's Men were unsuccessful in their tour in the country, 
and soon after sold several of their plays to the Chamber- 
lain's Men.^^ Some of these plays the Chamberlain's Company 
acted during the next season.^'^ 

From these few facts, it may be seen that the relations of 
the various companies to each other were very close. Several 

^ See T. F. Ordish, Early London Theatres, Chapters IV and VI. 

™ Among these were Edward the Third and The Contention. 

^ The foregoing statements based on F. G. Fleay's History of the Eng- 
lish Stage, serve to illustrate the probable general conditions, although some 
of the facts in detail may be open to question. For a discussion of these 
matters, see W. W. Greg's edition of Henslowe's Diary, Vol. II, which 
has appeared since this was written. 



10 

were at times under one management, as the Sussex, Admiral's 
and Chamberlain's are shown to have been in Henslowe's 
accounts;-® plays were sold from one company to another; 
actors and writers changed about, and the companies played 
in different theatres. In such a state of affairs not only were 
successful themes worked up into rival plays by several com- 
panies, but telling theatrical effects and situations were bor- 
rowed and imitated. An example of the theatrical policy of 
the day is seen in the list of the York and Lancaster plays in 
the possession of the companies at this time, more than one 
of which were being acted at the same time. Pembroke's Men 
were playing " The Contention," Part II, at The Curtain, 1589 
to 1591; the Queen's Men Marlowe's (?) early version of 
" Henry the Sixth," Part I, at The Theatre in 1588-9, and 
"The True Tragedy" in 1591 ; Strange's Men gave "Henry 
the Sixth," Part I, with the Talbot scenes, at The Rose seven- 
teen times from March 3, 1592, to January 31, 1593. Hen- 
slowe's " Richard the Confessor," a possible Richard the Third 
play, ran from December 31, 1583, to January 16, 1594, at 
The Rose, and " Buckingham " from December 30 to January 
27.-^ The Chamberlain's Men at the same time were probably 
playing " Richard the Third " at The Theatre.^" A " hit " in 
material or staging was eagerly sought in this theatre-going 
age, and imitation of a success became inevitable."^^ 

''^Henslowe's Diary. Edited by W. W. Greg. 

^^ See Fleay, History of the English Stage. See also Revels Accounts, 

^^ Fleay's conjecture of a performance of Richardus Tertius before the 
Queen, September, 1592, is interesting in the light of the vogue of the 
subject at this time. 

^^The popularity of the subject continued long after the height of the 
vogue of the chronicle play. In 161 o, Robert Niccol's new edition of 
The Mirror for Magistrates appeared, in which there were two poems on 
Richard the Third, The Two Princes, and Richard HI, the last to replace 
Segar's poem, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, in the 1563 edition. 
In 1 6 14 a poem appeared called The Ghost of Richard the Third, Expressing 
himself e in these three Parts, i. His Character. 2. His Legend. 3. His 
Tragedie, containing more of him than hath been heretofore shewed: either 
in Chronicles, Playes or Poems. The author signed himself C. B., and is 
supposed to be Christopher Brooke. Sir John Beaumont wrote a poem 
on Bosworth Field in 1629. In ballad literature Richard the Third figures 



11 

Turning now to the drama of the time, we find a similar 
state of affairs, i. e., a close relation between authors, which 
furthered imitation and tended toward the establishment of 

in R. Johnson's Buckingham, in his collection called The Crowne-Gardland 
of Goulden Roses, published in 1612, and going through many subsequent 
editions. (See Publications of the Percy Society, Vol. 6.) This was to 
be sung to the tune of Jane Shore, an air frequently referred to, but which 
has never been recovered. (J. P. Collier's Extracts from the Register of 
the Stationers Company.) About this time too, must have appeared the 
collection called The Golden Garland of Princely Delight, in which there 
was a song on The most cruel Murther of Edward V. The thirteenth 
edition of this came out in 1690. There were innumerable chap-books 
also during this period. Plays on Richard the Third continued to appear. 
In Henslowe's accounts for the year 1599, we find this entry: 
" Receaved of M'' Ph. Hinchlow, by a note under - 

the hand of M^ Rob. Shaw, in full payment, 

for the second pt of Henrye Richmond, sold 

to him and his Companye, the some of eight 

pownds current money, the viii*^" daye of 

november 1599. . . . 
This may refer to a play on Richard the Third with the emphasis upon 
the character of Henry Richmond. This is further borne out by the dis- 
covery among the papers of Edward AUeyn at Dulwich College, on the 
back of a note from one Robert Shaa to Henslowe, of the following 
memorandum : 

" I see. Wm. Wor. and Ansill, and to them the plowghmen. 

2 see. Richard and Q. Eliza. Catesbie, Lovell, Rice ap. Tho., Blunt, 

Banester. 

3 see. Ansell. Daug'" : Denys, Hen, Oxf. Courtney, Bouchier and Grace. 

To them Rice ap. Tho. and his Souldiers. 

4 see. Milton, Ban. his wyfe and Children. 

5 see. K. Rich. Cates, Lovell, Norf. Northumb. Percye." 

Collier refers this to Jonson's Richard Crookback of 1602, but Mr. Fleay 
(Chronicle History of the London Stage, Vol. II, page 284), thinks it be- 
longs to the second part of Richmond, while Mr. Churchill (Richard the 
Third up to Shakespeare, page 531), believes it "is a bit from a play used 
during this period (i. e., the nineties), and replaced by Jonson's Richard 
Crookback in 1602. This play of Jonson's we know only by name, from the 
entry in Henslowe's Diary : 

" Lent unto bengemy Johnsone at the apoynt- 

ment of E. Alleyn and W™ Birde, the 24 of 

June 1602, in earneste of a Boocke called 

Richard erookbacke, and for new adieijons for 

Jeronymo, the some of . . . 



12 

types. This is seen in an examination of the plays which were 
produced at this period. Leaving out of consideration the 
comedies as having Httle to do with our question, we find nine 
extant histories and tragedies appearing in the twenty years 
between 1560 and 1580, or roughly, between " Gorboduc " and 
" The Famous Victories." I give the list below.^- These 
plays, with the exception of " Apius and Virginia," are either 
Senecan in general character, as " Gorboduc " " Jocasta," 
" Tancred and Gismunda," and " The Misfortunes of 
Arthur,"^^ or they illustrate some of the many modifications 
of the morality, as in the revenge play of " Horestes," or the 
biography of " Cambyses."^* Both classes have contributed 
to the history of the drama. The indebtedness to the 
classical influence has been noted from the time of Nash's 
Preface to Greene's " Menaphon," was discussed by Warton 
in his " History of Poetry," and has received attention from 
such writers as Collier, Ward, Symonds, Klein, R. Fischer, 
J. W. Cunliffe and others.^^ The contributions especially to 

There are several allied plays in this period. In 1600, Haywood's 
Edward the Fourth, in two parts, was published, after having been acted 
by Derby's Men at The Curtain. The second part gives the story of Jane 
Shore with scenes in which Richard the Third figures, though not prom- 
inently. About the same time Day and Chettle wrote a Shores Wife, of 
which we know nothing more than the name. We have no information 
either of A Tragedy of Richard the Third or the English Prophet, by 
Samuel Rowley, licensed in 1623. Fleay says that it was played at The 
Fortune by Palsgrave's Men in 1623. {History of the London Stage, page 
307.) These are the only plays of which we have any information up to 
the closing of the theatres. 

^' Cambyses, 1561. Gorboduc, 1562. Jocasta, 1566. Albyon Knight, 
1566. Horestes, 1567. Apius and Virginia, 1567-8. King Johan, 1538, and 
The Misfortunes of Arthur, 1588, belong here, although they do not come 
within these limits. In addition to these, a number of Latin plays on 
chronicle subjects were produced. We are directly concerned with 
Richardus Tertius, 1579. Descriptions and discussions of these may be 
found in Schelling, The English Chronicle Play, and in Fleay, Biographical 
Chronicle of the English Drama. 

'^ For an analysis of the Senecan characteristics of The Misfortunes of 
Arthur, see J. W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, 
Appendix II. 

^ And in the earlier social-polemical play of King Johan. 

^^ See J. W. Cunliffe, op. cit., for a brief history of its treatment. 



13 



be noted are the " high " style in the treatment of lofty themes, 
the better ordering and limitation of act and scene, and the 
facility in furthering the narrative gained by the character of 
the messenger.^^ In the moralities, the methods of presenta- 
tion are borrowed largely from the older religious drama, and 
thus, especially in regard to staging, these plays are highly 
interesting. While the figures of Johan, Horestes, and Cam- 
byses are little more than abstractions, yet they show the 
popular and traditional ideas of stage propriety in dealing 
with kingly and national subjects. 

Of the plays immediately succeeding these early ones up to 
1594, about forty are histories^'^ and tragedies;^® in which 

** An important influence came indirectly from the Senecan play through 
Kyd's adaptations of Senecan devices in The Spanish Tragedy, 1585. See 
Schelling, op. cit., page 25. 

" These may be tragedies, comedies, or tragi-comedies. 

** The following are the extant tragedies and history plays produced be- 
tween 1580 and 1594. 



Play. 


Date. 


Place. 


Company. 




S. R. 


Solyman and Perseda 


1583 


Theatre 


Queen's 


Nov. 


20, 1592 


First Part of Jeronimo 


c. 1584 


« 


" 




1605. 


Arden of Feversham 


1585 


" (?) 


" 


Apr. 


3. 1592. 


Locrine 


1586 


? 


? 


Jul. 


20, 1594. 


Jack Straw 


1587 


Theatre 


Queen's 


Oct. 


23, 1593- 


I and 2 Tamburlaine 


1587 


In City 


Adm'I's 


Aug. 


14, 1590. 


Wounds of Civil War 


« 


(( 


" 


May 


24, 1594. 


Famous Victories 


c. 1588 


Theatre 


Queen's 


May 


14, IS94- 


Selimus 


1588 


« 


« 




1594- 


Troublesome Raigne 


« 


" 


(( 




1591- 


Alphonsus of Arragon 


c. 1588 


" 


" 






Dr. Faustus 


1588 


In City 


Adm'I's 


Jan. 


7, 1601. 


Spanish Tragedy 


c. 1588 


(( 


" 


Oct. 


6, 1592. 


David and Bathseba 


" 


« 


" 


May 


I4> 1594. 


Leir 


1588-9 


Theatre 


Queen's 




" 


George a Green 


" 


<c 


" 


Apr. 


I, 1595. 


I Henry VI (Marlowe's) 


« 


" 


It 






Battle of Alcazar 


« 


In City 


Adm'I's 




1594- 


I Contention 


1589 


Theatre 


Queen's 


Mar. 


12, 1594- 


Jew of Malta 




« 


<c 


May 


17, 1594- 


Friar Bacon 


1589 


(( 


" 


May 


14, 1594. 


Fair Em 


1590 


Cross Keys 


Strange's 




1631. 


Edward I 


(( 


« 


te 


Oct. 


8, 1593. 



14 



three well-marked types may be distinguished; the chronicle 
history, the Marlowean play, and the neo-Senecan tragedy of 
Kyd. These three classes may be differentiated according to 
the material of the plot, the structure, characterization, and 
stage effects, but they are not mutually exclusive. There is 
hardly a serious play after the appearance of " Tamburlaine " 
in 1586, which is not influenced by Marlowe's heroic ideals, 
often, at the same time, showing the influence of Kyd. Many 
of these plays deal with subjects from the national chronicles 
and show in combination with the traits of the work of Mar- 
lowe and Kyd, what came to be considered the essential marks 
of the chronicle play. In addition, as a result of the great 
vogue of this latter type at this time, there are a number of 
plays which, while the material is not drawn from the English 
chronicles, in structure, spirit, and general character, are 
chronicle plays.^^ 

Such being the theatrical and dramatic situation of the time, 
it is possible to learn much of the character of " Richard the 
Third " as a stage play through a study of this preceding 
drama, especially of the plays produced during the ten years 
immediately before its appearance. Disregarding for the 
nonce the special marks of Marlowe and Kyd in these plays, 



Edward III 






1590 


Curtain 


Pemb'k's 


Dec. 


I, 


1595. 


2, Contention 






« 


" 


« 




1595. 


Edward II 






1590-1 


" 


« 


Jul. 


6, 


1591- 


James IV 






1590 


Theatre 


Queen's 


May 


14, 


1594. 


Nobody and Somebody 




" 


? 


? 


Mar. 


12, 


1606, 


True Tragedy 






1591 


Theatre 


Queen's 


Jun. 


19, 


1594. 


Woodstock 






c. " 


i( 


" (Fleay. ?) 






Romeo and Juliet 






" 


In City 


AdmTs 








Dido 






" 


Children 


of Chapel. 








Knack to Know a 


Knave 




1592 


Rose 


Strange's 


Jan. 


7, 


1594- 


I Henry VI (Shakespeare's) 


1592 


(C 


" 


Feb. 


25> 


1597-8. 


Massacre at Paris 






1593 


It 


« 








Titus Andronicus 






1594 


« 


Sussex, 


Feb. 


6, 


1593-4- 


Richard III 






" 


Theatre 


Chamb. 


Oct. 


29, 


1597- 


Sir Thomas More 






I59S-6 
(Dyce 1590) 


(( 


« 








^^ For a 


fuller 


treatment of this subject, see A. H. 


Thorndike's 



Tragedy, especially Chapter IV. To Professor Thorndike the writer is per- 
sonally indebted for many suggestions in this chapter. 



15 

and considering the body of plays based upon chronicles, either 
really or nominally, we find a sufficiently constant recurrence 
of situations and characteristics to constitute a well-marked 
type. This type may be characterized generally as dealing 
with large national questions, the course of events often ex- 
tending through a long period of years, and concerned with 
some national crisis, as the fate of a king, or the opposition 
of a foe. The interest centers in the story, which is generally 
one of a popular nature, and often well-known to the audience 
in ballad and legend. As in other popular forms of the drama, 
the number of characters is large, and the scenes are of wide 
variety of appeal, and usually rapid in succession. Favorite 
situations, which are found constantly recurring, may be 
classed as follows : 

I. Martial Scenes. — There is an invariable group of situa- 
tions having to do with the preparation for war or with the 
progress of the battle. Such are the embassy, the defiance, 
boast, threat, denunciation, parley and quarrel, the battle, 
whether on the stage or behind the scenes, the storming of a 
city wall, the single encounter, and the flight from the field. 
All these occur so frequently that particular examples are 
unnecessary. Other scenes of this sort, not so frequent, but 
effective when they are introduced, are the refusal to sur- 
render, the supplication to a conqueror, and the reception of a 
deliverer. 

II. Scenes of Wonder. — The interest in the story is whetted 
by the introduction of scenes dealing with the wonderful. 
This element may be introduced by means of prophecies and 
their fulfillment,*'* or by supernatural events, such as Queen 
Elinor's " sinking " in " Edward the First,"*^ or the appear- 
ance of the five moons in " The Troublesome Raigne," or of 
the three suns in " The Contention," Part II, and " Henry the 
Sixth," Part III. 

III. Comic Scenes. — There is invariably a comic element. 
This often centers about the life of the common soldier. He 

*° Troublesome Raigne, Edward the First, Edward the Third, etc. 
*^ Or Lady Elinor and the wizard in Henry the Sixth, Part II. 



16 

is levied unwillingly,*- or he is thievish and ridiculously boast- 
ful.*^ The comic scenes as a whole are not distinctive, but 
deal with the material found commonly successful on the 
stage. 

IV. Political Wooing Scenes. — In these plays the political 
marriage is presented as a motive, as in " The Famous Vic- 
tories," and " The Troublesome Raigne."** 

V. Terminal Scenes. — Stages in the story are marked by 
eloquent scenes of self-congratulation after a battle,*^ or 
reconciliations of opponents.**' The funeral or the preparation 
for it is common here as in other Elizabethan tragedy. 

VI. Typical Characters. — Consonant with these typical 
scenes, the characters fall into well-defined types, as the war- 
rior, whether king or subject, the popular hero, like Falcon- 
bridge in " The Troublesome Raigne," the Black Prince in 
" Edward the Third," or Richmond in " The True Tragedy," 
the loyal statesman, like Humphrey and Cromwell, the queen 
bewailing misfortune, like Constance, Margaret, and Anne of 
Bohemia, and the conquered king, often in great distress, as 
in "Locrine," " Selimus," "Wounds of Civil War," and 
" Alphonsus of Arragon." 

VII. Stage Effects. — The plays are characterized by elab- 
orate devices for stage effects. In this they were undoubtedly 
influenced by the processions and royal progresses of the time, 
and probably owe something to the pageants of the medieval 
drama.*'^ We find the predominance of such scenes as crown- 

*^ The Famous Victories. Also in Locrine. 

"Jack Straw, The Famous Victories, Locrine. 

"Also in Henry the Sixth, Part I, Margaret and Suffolk. In slightly 
different form also in Tamburlaine, Locrine, Alphonsus of Arragon. Mr. 
Churchill {op. cit., page 349) points out a similar case in Mad Hercules, 
Act II, Scene 2, and in Richardus Tertius, Actio III, Scene 4. Theodor 
Vatke suggests the same comparison, in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Gesell- 
schaft, Vol. IV, page 64. 

^ Henry the Sixth, Part III, Contention, Part II, Jack Straw. Also in 
Tamburlaine, Locrine, Alphonsus of Arragon, and Battle of Alcazar. 

*® Henry the Fifth, Troublesome Raigne, James the Fourth, etc. 

" Found frequently in Greek drama. The " shows " in Richardus Tertius 
take the form of processions. 



17 

ings,*8 marriages, betrothals/^ ceremonies connected with arm- 
ing or " dubbing,"^° the issuing of proclamations,^^ pen- 
nances,^2 " shows," or tableaux.^^ In the martial scenes much 
is made of the march to battle, or the rush of soldiers across 
the stage,^* or the effectiveness is heightened by frequent 
" alarums," by the sennet at the entrance and exit of the king, 
by the flourish of trumpets accompanying the army, by the 
firing of cannon, or "noise without."^^ Thunder and light- 
ning, darkness, or other devices heighten the effect of the 
scenes of wonder. 

VIII, Structure and Style. — The chronicle play is essentially 
epic in form. While there is some selection of material, im- 
posed by the central interest in the life of the king, or in the 
particular national struggle, the tendency is to present every- 
thing upon the stage. In this the chronicle play has much in 
common with the dramatization of the Bible narrative, the aim 
in both cases being the same, namely the presentation of a 
story. In style, these plays are characterized generally by ora- 
torical effects, which display themselves in such passages as 
the reports of heroic deeds,^^ descriptions of England and 
references to her past," patriotic harangues before an army,^* 
and high-resolved defiances. 

Such being the characteristics of the chronicle as such, we 
may now turn to the influence upon it of the epoch-making 
plays of Marlowe. But before noticing the important innova- 
tions effected by them, it is necessary to consider the general 
characteristics of his work. The peculiar Marlowean feature 

** Passim. 

*^ Edward the First, James the Fourth. 

"'Edward the Third, Contention Part II, Sir Thomas More. 
'^Jack Straw, Contention Part I, Edzvard the First. Also Promos and 
Cassandra. 

^^ Henry the Sixth Part I, The True Tragedy. 

^' Contention Part II, Edward the First, James the Fourth, Locrine. 

** Passim. 

** Passim. 

^Famous Victories, Edward the Third. 

" Henry the Sixth Part II, Contention Part I, Locrine, Edward the First. 

^Edward the Third. 



18 

to be noted is the entirely new element in his conception of 
heroic figures, and in his lofty ideas of the possibilities of 
human achievement. The modifications growing out of this 
new conception are the intense centering of attention upon the 
person of the hero, and the suppression of all scenes not closely 
connected with this central figure. This results in a unity 
quite at variance with the general epic quality of the early his- 
tories which we have been considering. In this intenser 
focusing, where some overruling passion is made the motive, 
we have a new and remarkable development of the villain- 
hero, as in " Tamburlaine," " The Jew of Malta," and " Faus- 
tus," and the chronicle is transformed into a play of tragic 
rather than of epic interest. An illustration of Marlowe's 
method of suppressing all extraneous matter is found in his 
peculiar modification of the comic element. When the comic 
appears in his plays, it grows out of the situation and is never 
so distinctly a by-play as in the epic type of chronicle play.^^ 
For this reason it is often grotesque rather than broadly comic. 
This seems to have led to the frequent statement that this 
element is lacking. In " Tamburlaine,"^" the scenes dealing 
with the foolish king Mycetes,^^ the war of words between 
Zenocrate and Zabina,®^ the inert son of Tamburlaine,®^ and 
the artless captain,*^* were undoubtedly grotesquely comic. It 
may be also that the Bajazet scenes®^ had a similar effect to an 
Elizabethan audience. The same elements of the grotesque 
are seen in the trick put upon Jacomo,®® in the ironical justice 

^* The comic scenes in Dr. Faustus, which may seem to be an exception 
to this, clearly bear the marks of other hands than Marlowe's. For a 
discussion of this, see A. W. Ward's edition of Faustus, Appendix A, by 
F. G. Fleay. 

°° The first editor of Tamburlaine says that he omitted " many fond and 
frivolous gestures " from the play as given on the stage. These were 
probably added by the actors and were undoubtedly of a broadly comic 
character. 

®^ Tamburlaine, Part I, Act I, Scene i, and Act II, Scene 3. 

''''Ditto, Act III, Scene 3. 

^^Tamburlaine, Part II, Act IV, Scene i. 

'^ Ditto, Act V, Scene i. 

'■'Part I, Act IV, Scenes 2 and 4. 

"'Jew of Malta, Act IV, Scene 3. 



19 

of Barabas being caught in his own trap,^^ in the folly of the 
scheming Ithomar,^^ and in the ridiculous figure of the Jew.^* 
When we turn to " Faustus," the character of the comic ele- 
ment here, more distinctly a by-play than in any of the others, 
may be accounted for by the close adherence to the source, 
from which the comic passages are copied with great fidelity. 
They are, however, with characteristic Marlowean intensity, 
kept, like the rest of the play, within the realm of the magical. 
In " Edward the Second," while there seems to be no comic 
relief to the tragedy, there certainly might have been oppor- 
tunity in the "business" here and there for comic touches, 
after the manner of Marlowe, especially in the characters of 
Gaveston and Spenser. 

As a result of this intenser centering of interest, Marlowe 
developed into greater effectiveness situations that had been 
of little more than narrative value in the chronicle plays. This 
can be seen by comparing the wooing of Katherine in " The 
Famous Victories " with the similar scene of Tamburlaine's 
wooing of Zenocrate,''*' or by noting the importance and effect- 
iveness of murder scenes after the model was set in " Edward 
the Second."^^ The splendor and impressiveness of Zeno- 
crate's funeral outdoes all the earlier attempts at making 
this favorite scene an effective one. So it is with many of 
his other elaborations of novel and striking scenes, as Tam- 
burlaine's entrance when drawn by the "pampered jades,"" 
the panoply of Scythian chieftains, the gorgeousness of ori- 
ental accoutrements, or the Jew tortured in his cauldron," 
the apparitions of Mephistopheles and his band of devils,'^* 
and the writing of Faustus' fearful compact in his own blood.'^^ 

^'' Ditto, Act V, Scene 6. 

^^ Ditto, Act IV, Scenes 4 and 6. 

°* Barabas was represented with a large false nose. In Rowley's Search 
for Money, 1609, allusion is made to the " artificall Jewe of Maltaes nose." 
Mermaid Series edition of Marlowe, page 264. 

'" Tamburlaine, Part I, Act I, Scene 2. 

""■ Act V, Scene 5. 

" Tamburlaine, Part II, Act IV, Scene 4. 

" Jew of Malta, Act V, Scene 6. 

''^Faustus, Scenes 5 and 6. 

" Ditto, Scene 5. 



20 

The popularity of these plays was enormous and their influ- 
ence far-reaching J^ " Tamburlaine " was the one most imme- 
diately influential. Of direct imitations, the earhest are 
" Selimus "" and Greene's " Alphonsus of Arragon."'^^ Peek's 
" Battle of Alcazar," acted in 1592, with the hero of overween- 
ing assurance, Stukeley, showed the lasting popularity of the 
type. Of these, " Selimus " alone retains the broadly comic 
element ; in " Alphonsus of Arragon," such comic touches as 
appear are in the manner of Marlowe. " The Battle of 
Alcazar," in its unrelieved gloom, as well as in other charac- 
teristics, illustrates as well the third great dramatic influence 
of the time. 

Kyd's " Spanish Tragedy " appeared in 1585-7, and was 
very popular, as seen from Henslowe's entries and the con- 
stant references to the play. Professor A. H. Thorndike has 
shown^^ that it was this play that brought into prominence in 
the Elizabethan drama the motive of revenge, with its attend- 
ant motives of intrigue and bloodshed, and further character- 
ized by the presence of ghostly monition, and of the reflective 
element in the soliloquies. In the plays we have just consid- 
ered, we find these elements present in addition to the modi- 
fications imitated from Marlowe.^^ " Locrine," " Alphonsus 
of Arragon," and " The Battle of Alcazar " are all revenge 
plays. " Locrine " and " The Battle of Alcazar " develop this 
motive throughout ; " Alphonsus of Arragon " is a revenge 

" Plays of this type were satirized by Hall in his Virgidenarium, Book I, 
Satire 3. 

"Anonymous. Acted about 1588. 

"Acted about 1588. 

" The Relation of Hamlet to Contemporary Revenge Plays. Publications 
of the Modern Language Association, 1902. 

^ Mr. Churchill has pointed out that The True Tragedy, while a chronicle 
play in important features, was influenced by Marlowe's Tamburlaine and 
the revenge plays, and that owing to these influences, " as a History play 
The True Tragedy is undoubtedly the first in which the interest is fixed 
upon one central and dominating figure," and adds, " The Richard of the 
True Tragedy is not only central but dominating, not merely attracts the 
chief interest but absorbs practically all of it." Op. cit., pages 398-9- An 
analysis of the influences upon it and its relation to Richard the Third 
is given on pages 396 to 528. 



21 

play in the first two acts, it then changes to a play of the con- 
quest type of " Tamburlaine." In " Locrine," " The Battle of 
Alcazar," and " The True Tragedy," we have the ghost appear- 
ing and crying " Vindicta ! " ; in " Alphonsus of Arragon," this 
ghostly element is furnished in a measure, by the enchantments 
of Medea, and by the misleading incitement of Mahomet of the 
Brazen Head. The soHloquy is present in " Selimus," " Loc- 
;rine," " Alphonsus of Arragon," and " The Battle of Alcazar." 
This element is almost lacking in the epical chronicles, where 
the soHtary speaker is not common, and long speeches are, for 
the most part, addresses to followers. 

We have now examined the histories and tragedies pre- 
ceding and contemporary with " Richard the Third," the sub- 
ject of our investigation. It remains to show in how far 
" Richard the Third " is a typical play of the chronicle type 
and in how far it has been modified by the influence of Mar- 
lowe and Kyd. The situations and characteristics that mark 
it as a chronicle play are such as the following: (i) The 
battle at the end with the inevitable single encounter.^^ (2) 
The prominence given to the fulfilment of prophecies, as in 
the case of Clarence and the letter G,^^ of Richmond's foretold 
succession,83 of the Irish bard's warning of Richard against 
Richmond,^* or of Margaret's maledictions^^ and Bucking- 
ham's ill-kept oaths,86 or Richard's grotesque trickery of Hast- 
ings'^ and Clarence.'^ (3) The wooing of an enemy, intro- 
duced twice, in the brilliant Anne^^ and Elizabeth^^ scenes. 
(4) The typical character of the wailing queen in its highest 
perfection in Elizabeth, Anne, and Margaret, of the popular 

*^Act V, Scenes 4 and 5. 

*^Act I, Scene i. Cf. page 15, note 40. 

■^Act IV, Scene 2. 

^ Ditto. 

'°Act I, Scene 3. 

*" Act II, Scene i and Act V, Scene 1. 

" Act III, Scene 4. 

'*Act I, Scenes i and 4. 

^'Act I, Scene 2. Cf. page 16, note 44. 

«°Act IV, Scene 4. 



22 

hero in Richmond, and of the loyal statesman in Hastings.®^ 
(5) The repetition of favorite " efifects," such as the 
funeral procession of Henry the Sixth,^^ the " large " scenes 
in the council,**^ with the mayor and citizens in Baynard 
Castle,^* or the leaders haranguing their troops,^^ the throne 
scene with Richard in state, crowned,^^ the company of wail- 
ing women,^'^ the marching of soldiers across the stage,^^ the 
excursion, the frantic entrance of Richard calling for a horse, 
the encounter and death of Richard, and the crowning of 
Richmond on the battle-field.'''' (6) The epic quahties of 
structure, exemplified in the general aim of presenting the life 
and death of the hero, and in the retention of such episodes 
from the source as the resolve by the queen to take sanctu- 
ary,^°° Rivers, Grey and Vaughan on the way to death,^"^ the 
scrivener with the indictment of Hastings,^"^ and Buckingham 
led to execution.^''^ 

As has been said, this play shows the dominating influence 
of Marlowe. As in the plays of that author, so in " Richard 
the Third," the hero is of constant and over-weening impor- 
tance. The interest is held and the action centers about his 
figure as it did not in such plays as " The Famous Victories," 
" The Troublesome Raigne," or " Edward the First." In 
variance from the epic type, the whole play tends to become 
a series of episodes connected by the shortest possible narra- 
tive scenes. As in Marlowe again, the scenes of humorous 
nature are of the warp and woof of the play, and are of 

"^ Cf . page 2 1 , VI. 
' *^Act I, Scene 2. Cf. page 16, VII, and note 47. 
*'Act III, Scene 4. Cf. page 17, note 53. 
** Act III, Scene 7. 
"'Act V, Scene 3. Cf. page 15, I. 
°*Act IV, Scene 2. Cf. page 17, note 48. 
"^Act IV, Scenes i and 4. Cf. page 16, VI. 
^^Act IV, Scene 4. Cf. page 17, note 54. 
*' Act V, Scenes 4 and 5. Cf. page 17, notes 48 and 54. 
"" Act II, Scene 4. 
^" Act III, Scene 3. 
"2 Act III, Scene 6. 
"3 Act V, Scene i. Cf. pages 15 and 17, VIII. 



23 

the same ironical and grotesque character. The quarrel of 
Richard and Margaret,"* the wooing of Anne,"^ the scene 
with Elizabeth,"^ and the satirical over-reaching of the Mayor 
and Citizens,"'^ are treated with Marlowean " coarseness of 
stroke," and Richard's mis-shapen body probably gave oppor- 
tunity for comic touches of the same nature. Extravagance 
and elaboration of effective situations, as in Marlowe's work, 
are also seen in the two wooing scenes, in the murder of 
Clarence, with its repetition in Tyrrel's account of the death 
of the two princes, and in the last scene on the battle-field. 
Again this play represents the culmination of the development 
of the villain-hero accomplishing his ends by intrigue and 
murder, characteristic of the " Jew of Malta." 

This last characteristic is, at the same time, one of the 
marks of the influence of Kyd upon the play, exerted directly, 
or it may be indirectly, through Marlowe. The particular 
influence of Kyd, however, is seen in the emphasis upon the 
revenge motive, in this case of a double nature, with Richard 
at first the principal agent and later its object,^^^ and in the 
introduction of the ghosts to appal the wrong-doer and to 
urge on the avenger. The soliloquy, characteristic of both 
Kyd and Marlowe, is frequent ; the play opens with a long one, 
and, from time to time, Richard gives account of himself in 
passages of varying length.^°^ These seem to mark the steps 
in the progress of the play in much the same manner as the 
congratulatory scenes of the epical plays. 

" Richard the Third " then, when examined in its situations 
and motives, is found to display within itself the marks of the 
three most potent influences upon the early Elizabethan drama, 
the chronicle, the play of Marlowe, and the Kydian tragedy. 
There are discoverable medieval elements also, still to be noted 

^"^Act I, Scene 3. 
"=Act I, Scene 2. 
^°«Act IV, Scene 4- 
"^ Act III, Scene 7- 

"^ This double revenge is found also in Locrine. 

"'Act I, Scene i. Act III, Scene s, Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3. Act V, 
Scene 3. 



24 

when the play is considered in greater detail. The most im- 
portant characteristic in fixing its type is the prominence given 
to the protagonist, which results in the transference of the 
interest to character, rather than centering in the story, a fact 
which may explain its persistence on the stage over all the 
other chronicle plays of this period. Its greater interest his- 
trionically by virtue of this we shall attempt to make plain 
in the next chapter. 



II 

Richard the Third on the Elizabethan Stage 

Theories of Elizabethan staging — Documentary evidence — Method here 
pursued — Examination of the play from the point of view of its presenta- 
tion — The prologue — Stage oratory — The funeral procession — The wooing 
— Comic touches — The murder scene — The use of the lament — Scene of 
the two camps — The ghost on the stage — The battle scene, its history and 
importance — Conclusion. 

Although " Richard the Third " was indisputably one of the 
most popular of Shakespeare's plays, we have no record of its 
performance during the time of Elizabeth or James. There is 
no entry in Henslowe's diary, or in the Revels Accounts per- 
taining, so far as we know, to this play, although Fleay con- 
jectures a performance at Court during the Christmas festivi- 
ties of 1594.^ The only known, definite account of a per- 
formance before the closing of the theaters is found in the 
Office Book of Sir Henry Herbert, under date of November 
16, 1633, and already alluded to in Chapter I. Any further 
information must come indirectly from such references as the 
entry in Manningham's Diary, which refers to a performance 
on March 31, 1601,^ or from such interpretation as may be 
given to the phrase " lately acted," on the successive quartos. 

It has been pointed out in Chapter I that this play was prob- 
ably first given at The Theatre by the Lord Chamberlain's 
Company, and it has been further seen, in the allusions given, 
that Burbage was the Elizabethan Richard. But under what 
conditions Burbage played Richard the Third at The Theatre 

'^ Life of Shakespeare, page 14. Also History of the London Stage, 
page 121. 

^ See Chapter I, page 3. A hint of a Richard in the mid-seventeenth 
century is given by the Prologue to Chapman's Bussy D'Ambois. One of 
the actors, supposed to be Tom Bond, is recommended because 

As Richard he was liked. 
This prologue was prefixed to the edition of 1641. 

25 



26 

in the season of 1593-4 must, except in their general charac- 
ter, be a matter of conjecture, and even the general conditions, 
it has been found, are difficult to establish. 

The question of Elizabethan staging is a large one, and the 
various theories advanced need not be reproduced here. The 
writers upon the subject, however, whether following Kilian,^ 
Brandl,* and Brodmeier^ in their theory of " alternation," or 
upholding the idea of the " plastic," " symbolic," or " incon- 
gruous " stage as set forth by Mantzius,** Reynolds,^ or Cor- 
bin,® or insisting upon the bare stage as conceived by Mr. 
Greet and his co-workers, agree upon certain leading points.^ 
It is generally accepted that the stage was a large, open plat- 
form, with a tiring-room at the back, and a balcony above. 
The division of the stage into an outer and inner part is a moot 
point, as is also the question of the presence of curtains. Or, 
conceding that the stage was curtained, the position of these 
hangings is debated. Whether there were two or three doors 
to the stage, and the position of these, it is from our present 
data impossible to determine.^" It must be remembered, 
moreover, that the establishment of the use and position of 
these in one theatre would by no means show their existence 
in others. 

^ Jahrbuch der Shakespeare Gesellschaft, Vols. XXVIII and XXXVI. 

* Introduction to the Schle gel-Tie ck Shakespeare. 

^ Die Shakespeare Bilhne nach den alien BUhnenanweisungen. Weimer, 
1904. 

"History of Theatric Art, Vol. II, page 338. 

^ Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging, Modern Philology, April and 
June, 1905. 

^Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage. Atlantic Monthly, March, 1906. 

' A review of several recent theories of the Elizabethan stage is given 
by Mr. William Archer in The Quarterly Review for April, 1908. 

^° For a discussion of these points, see W. J. Lawrence, Some Char- 
acteristics of the Elizabethan Stuart Stage. Englische Studien, Vol. 32 
(1902). See also G. P. Baker, The Development of Shakespeare as a 
Dramatist, New York, 1907. Chapter II is on The Stage of Shakespeare. 
The most recent and a very valuable treatment of the question may be 
found in a pamphlet by Mr. V. E. Albright, A Typical Shakesperian Stage: 
The Outer-Inner Stage, New York, 1908. Mr. Albright's complete discussion 
is about to appear in Columbia University Studies in English. 



27 

An idea of some of the properties used may be gathered 
from Henslowe's Diary, The Revels Accounts, and from stage 
directions, but it is quite impossible to determine definitely 
how " a mose bancke," " a rocke," the " baye tree," or the 
" tree of gowlden apelles " was used, or what became of " the 
sittie of Rome," or the " tome of Dido," or " Hell mought " 
after their part in the play was over. Henslowe's inventories 
of the wardrobes of the companies under his management give 
only a general notion of the kind of costume used. Thus we 
know that the Admiral's Men had for Tamburlaine a " cote 
with coper lace," " breches of crymson vellvet," and a " bry- 
dell," that Henry the Fifth had a " satten dublet, layd with 
gowld lace," and a " velvet gowne," but little can be gathered 
as to their style, whether attempting any great historical or 
national distinction. From their description and the price 
paid for them, they appear to have been elaborate and rich in 
effect. We read of a " read clocke with read coper lace," a 
" scarlet clocke with silver buttons," " Dobes cotte of cloth of 
silver " and of a " womanes gowne of cloth of gowld." The 
plays of the period supplement this information somewhat by 
chance references to dress here and there. " Hieronimo's old 
cloak, ruff, and hat " are mentioned when the actors want a 
Spanish suit in " The Alchemist " ;^^ an elaborate description 
of the dress of Richard the Second's courtiers is given in 
" Woodstock,"^^ emphasizing the contrast to Gloucester's 
clothes of frieze; Edward the First appears in a "glass 
suit " ;^^ Tamburlaine's dress is loaded with the treasure of 
the Persians, and Edward the Second's favorite, Gaveston, 

" Act IV, Scene 4. 

^^ They sit in counsell to devise strange fashions 
And suite themselves in wyld and anticke habitts, 
Such as this kingdome never yett beheld : 
Frenche hose, Italian cloakes, and Spanish hatts, 
Polonian shoes, with pickes a hand full longe, 
Tyde to ther knees with chaynes of pearle and gould; 
Ther plumed topps fly waveing in the ayre, 
A cubit hye above ther wanton heads. Act I, Scene 3. 

" The famous Chronicle of King Edward the first, Dyce edition of Works 
of Greene and Peele, page 385. 



28 

wears a short Italian hooded cloak, 
Larded with pearl, and in his Tuscan cap, 
A jewel of more value than the crown. 

These references might be multiplied indefinitely. Whether 
all of these suggestions in the text were carried out is doubt- 
ful, but the general conclusion, so far as such data lead to 
one, is that there was an attempt to distinguish nationalities 
in dress, but evidently little feeling for anachronism or incon- 
gruity in the costume any more than in the properties. 

The bearing of such items as the foregoing has received 
much attention, and attempts have been made to reconstruct an 
Elizabethan performance from the data so gathered, supple- 
mented by the descriptions of social conditions, such as are 
found in " The Gull's Handbook," in '' Coryat's Crudities,"^* 
or Hentzer's " Travels."^^ The most notable of these attempts 
are found in Mantzius' " History of Theatric Art,"^^ and in 
Kegel's " Uber Englisches Theaterwesen zu Shakespeare's 
Zeit." In the investigation here attempted, however, I shall 
try to throw what light I may upon the presentation of " Rich- 
ard the Third " by considering the stage directions, and other 
internal evidences of staging in this play and in similar plays 
of the period. In other words, relying upon the close relations 
of the authors and of the theatres of the time, I shall continue 
the comparative method used in Chapter I. The result of such 
an investigation will not, perhaps, be any such rehabilitation as 
those mentioned above, but will serve to fix " Richard the 
Third " in its place among the plays on the London stage dur- 
ing the season of its popularity. 

In a consideration of this play from the point of view of 
presentation, however, it must be reiterated, in trying to con- 
ceive the impression made by " Richard the Third " on the 
Elizabethan stage, that it was not a new subject, but one as 
well known to the audience as were the fortunes of the house of 
Pelops to the Greeks. As has been pointed out in Chapter I, 

"By Thomas Coryat. 1611. London, 1776. 3 Vols. 
^^ A Journey into England In the year MDXCVIII. Edited by Horace 
Walpole, 1757. 

"Vol. Ill, pages 157-166. 



29 

there had been several plays dealing with the same personages, 
and presenting many of the same situations, such as " The true 
Tragedy of Richard the Third," which was on the stage in 
1 59 1 and continued on the stage until the time of Charles 
the First.^^ In view of the close relations of authors, actors, 
and theatres at this time, it is impossible to believe that Shakes- 
peare did not know this play,^^ whether " Richard the Third " 
was a conscious reworking of the materials there used or not. 
Any knowledge of the university play, " Richardus Tertius," is 
much more doubtful, but by no means impossible. From this 
point of view, therefore, " Richard the Third " was a revision 
in somewhat the same sense as was " Lear " and a study of its 
presentation must take these older plays into account. 

Act I, Scene i.^^ — The play opens with a scene which per- 
forms the function of a prologue, Clarence and Hastings serv- 
ing to illustrate the situation described by Richard in his 
soliloquy, in much the same manner as, in " The Battle of 
Alcazar," the Presenter's speech is interrupted by the dumb 
shows.^*^ The opening soliloquy, while thoroughly orthodox 
Senecan usage, and an almost inevitable dramatic device, had 
not characterized the chronicle plays generally before " Richard 
the Third." In plays of the type of " The Contention," " The 
Famous Victories," and " Edward the First," the reflective ele- 
ment is almost wholly lacking. In Marlowe's plays however, 
except " Tamburlaine," we find the opening soliloquy, and it 
is used frequently throughout the play, a natural result of the 
absorbing interest in the machinations of a villain, such as the 

" According to Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 
pages 94-5. 

^* See Churchill, Richard III up to Shakespeare, pages 396-8, and 497. 
Present opinion considers it uncertain whether Shakespeare knew the play, 
but agrees that whether he knew it or not, he was very slightly dependent 
upon it. The same is true of Richardus Tertius. 

^* The division into acts and scenes follows the Cambridge edition. The 
Quartos are not divided and in the Folio the division is incomplete. 

^ The opening soliloquy is closely related to the expository matter at 
the beginning of the morality plays, and in the folk drama, like the St. 
George plays. 
See Manly, Specimens of the Pre-Shakesperean Drama, Vol. I, page 289. 



30 

Jew, or the fluctuations of a tumultuous mind, as in " Faustus." 
It is probably due to this influence, reinforced by the example 
of the tragedy of Kyd, that Richard the Third indulges in his 
self -reporting and self-analytic soliloquies at every turn. 
How these were spoken we can gather only from chance refer- 
ences in the plays, the locus classicus being the advice to the 
players in " Hamlet."^^ Shakespeare has there furnished us 
with a document which gives us the popular stage oratory, and 
the reforms for which he worked. This speech, written about 
1602, describes the methods which probably prevailed during 
the earlier performances of " Richard the Third." The popu- 
lar style of oratory Shakespeare had ridiculed in " Midsummer 
Night's Dream " in Bottom's histrionic aspirations to reproduce 
" Ercles' vein " or " a part to tear a cat in, to make all split."^^ 
This expression, showing the popular ideal of tragic utterance, 
is found also in " Histriomastix," where an actor is referred 
to as liking to " rend and tear the cat upon a stage. "^^ In 
Greene's " Groatsworth of Wit " (1592), a player says: " The 
twelve labors of Hercules. ... I terribly thundered upon the 
stage," referring to a stock character much like the old part of 
Herod,^* giving full scope for rant and always associated with 
it. In addition to these direct references, it may be seen that 
the Tamburlaine type of hero encouraged, with his " high 
astounding terms," the indulgence in this bombastic style of 
speaking. Shakespeare's fling at the " deep tragedian "^^ in 
" Richard the Third " suggests a lack of sympathy thus early 
with their extravagance, and the ideal of a more intelligent and 
thoughtful manner which foreshadowed his later explicit defini- 

2' Act III, Scene 2, 

^ Act I, Scene 2. See also, Jonson's Bartholomew Fair, Act V, Scene 5. 
" I like 'em (i. e., the puppets) for that ; they offer not to fleer, nor jeer, 
nor break jests, as the great players do." 
^Act V, line 241. 

^* The stage directions in the Pageant of the Shearmen and Taylors reads, 
" Here Erode ragis in the pagond and in the strete also." 
Erode. I stampe ! I stare ! I loke all abowtt ! 

Might I them take, I schuld them bren at a glede ! 
I rent ! I rawe ! and now run I wode ! 
^Act III, Scene 5. 



31 

tion in " Hamlet." These soliloquies, therefore, we must be- 
lieve, in the Richard of Burbage, were given, under the super- 
vision of Shakespeare's own tutelage, with greater temperance 
and more " gently." In this more than in any chronicle 
play which preceded, the emphasis was placed upon the indi- 
vidual speeches rather than upon the action or upon such 
oratorical displays as were necessitated by the character of 
Edward the First, Edward the Third, or Tamburlaine, and 
the manner of giving these lines had, for that reason, a real 
significance in the development of the play. 

Scene 2. — The second scene opens with a funeral procession 
which strangely serves as the setting for the wooing. The 
funeral scene was a favorite one on the Elizabethan stage, as 
were all processional scenes, which gave opportunity for dis- 
play, of which the audience was fond, and which gratified in 
some measure the popular delight in realistic staging. There 
are usually few directions for the funeral processions, 
probably because they had become highly conventionalized. 
In some cases a few suggestions are given in addition 
to the " Enter funeral," as in " The First Part of Hieronimo," 
Act III, Scene 3, " Enter two, draging of ensigns ; then 
funerall of Andrea," and in " The Massacre at Paris," 
" They march out, with the body of the King lying on four 
men's shoulders, with a dead march, dragging weapons on the 
ground."^® In " Hamlet " the directions call for a " dead 
march " and a " peal of ordinance " f^ in " Edward the 
Second " they bring in the hearse and the " funeral robes."^^ 
The funeral of Zenocrate moves along in the light of a town 
burning in her honor, and a pillar, a " streamer," a tablet, and 
a picture of her are carried in the procession.^'' Yet, with 
the possibility of making much of a popular subject, the stage 
directions in this scene^° and the later lines suggest that the 

=^Act III. 
^Act V, Scene 2. 
=»Act V, Scene 6. 

^ Tamburlaine, Part II, Act III, Scene 2. 

^ " Enter the corps of King Henry the Sixth, Gentlemen with halberds 
to guard it. Lady Anne being the mourner." 



32 

sources were closely followed by Shakespeare, and that the 
train here numbered only a few. This is interesting, not so 
much because it would seem to illustrate his fidelity to the 
source, for he flagrantly disregards this in introducing the woo- 
ing of Anne, but because we find the figure of Richard made 
the dominant interest in a scene usually given over to purely 
decorative purposes. 

With such a setting, and immediately succeeding a scene of 
wailing, the wooing of Anne with its possibility of comic 
" business," and in the presence of the murdered Henry whose 
wounds, at the approach of Richard, 

Open their congealed mouths and bleed afresh, 

shows a grotesqueness typical of the Elizabethan drama. How 
much " business " was introduced cannot be determined, but on 
a stage where improvisation was the rule, it can hardly 
be thought that such an opportunity would be overlooked 
or lost.^^ Besides, Shakespeare intensifies this situation by 
representing the wrongs of Anne as coming more directly 
and personally to her from her wooer than had been 
the case in the similar scenes in " Tamburlaine "^^ and " The 
Famous Victories," and at the same time in making Richard, 
the wooer, almost revolting in his appearance.^^ The hideous- 
ness of Richard is constantly flung in his teeth in an entirely 
brutal manner, and spoken of in his soliloquies in the frank, 
self -reporting style of the tragedy villain. In picturing 
Richard thus, Shakespeare has only followed the chronicles 
from More down, who represent Richard as " croke backed," 
" hard favored," and with " ill- featured limbs," and an arm 

*^ Comic touches are suggested not only in the situation of a skilful dis- 
sembler, but also in the " keen encounter of our wits," as Richard himself 
describes it. This would delight an audience that enjoyed word-juggling. 
In addition, to overreach a woman has ever been considered comic, giving 
delight of the same kind as that felt in making game of anything weaker. 
^2 Part I, Act I, Scene 2. 

^ Richard as " a jolly thriving wooer " presented a ludicrous anomaly. 
He appreciates this when he says sardonically : 

I do mistake my person all this while : 
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot. 
Myself to be a marvellous proper man. 



33 

" werish, withered, and small." In " The True Tragedy " he 
is described as 

A man ill shaped, crooked backed, lame armed, withall.^* 

From the allusions to his deformity, it is seen that Shakespeare 
utilized these traditions to the utmost. Thus Richard speaks 
of himself as 

Deformed, unfinished, . . . 

. . . scarce half made up. 

And that so lamely and unfashionable 

That dogs bark at me as I halt by them.'' 

Anne calls him a " lump of foul deformity," " hedgehog " and 
" toad " while Margaret adds the epithets of " elvish mark'd," 
" bunch-back'd toad," and " bottled spider."36 s^ch words as 
these suggest an emphasis on physical unsightliness of an ex- 
treme type. But this, far from being revolting, was, we must 
believe, to. an audience that delighted in the antics of dwarfs 
and idiots and had not outgrown the love for harlequinade, 
highly ludicrous. 

Scene j. — The figure of Margaret dominates this scene, in 
her curses and exultation combining the ferocity of a Fury and 
the malignant forebodings of a witch." The impressiveness 
of the scene depended less upon the dramatic situation than 
upon the current belief in the efficacy of such curses, and in this 
respect is wholly of its time. Its effect upon the audience was 
undoubtedly expressed in Hasting's words after Margaret's 
parting execration. 

My hair doth stand on end to hear her curses. 

The scene closes with Richard's compact with the murderers in 
preparation for the next scene. 

Scene 4. — The act closes with Clarence's murder, which 
carries on and intensifies the somberness of the preceding 

^Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 3. 

^^Act I, Scene i. 

««Act I, Scene 3. 

'^Professor A. H. Thorndike in Tragedy, page 119, shows that Shake- 
speare "personified Nemesis in Margaret, and gave her the various func- 
tions of a supervising ghost and of a chorus — curses, laments, and exulta- 
tions." 

4 



34 

scenes. The presentation of the murder scene in the drama 
shows signs of development as do other situations constantly- 
used. In the English Senecan plays, following the Greek 
usage, the murder is usually behind the scenes, and in the Sene- 
can imitations, " Tancred and Gismunda," and " Gorboduc," 
this is the case. In the medieval English drama, where tradi- 
tional decencies had no sway, murders are frequently on the 
stage, and seem to have elicited considerable care to heighten 
their effectiveness. This is seen in the morality plays, and in 
such a late development of the morality as " Cambyses." In 
the vogue of the " Spanish Tragedy " and the drama of blood, 
no scene of this sort was too revolting to be represented on the 
stage. This reached its height in such a play as " Titus An- 
dronicus." In all of these the murderer is ruthless to the last 
extreme, the murder takes place quickly, with great bloodiness, 
and the situation, with utter indifference to the consideration of 
dramatic force, is repeated again and again. On the other 
hand, after Marlowe's " Edward the Second,"^^ the murder 
scene was made more of and used with great effectiveness. 
The scene in Marlowe's play is one of the greatest in English 
drama, and it is small wonder that it found instant imitation 
in the succeeding plays of " Henry the Sixth " Part 11,^* 
"Woodstock," and "Richard the Third," all three being 
probably written within three years after the appearance of 
" Edward the Second." In these scenes the preliminary ar- 
rangements for the murder, the forebodings and apprehensions 
of the one about to die, the discussion between the murderers 
and their victim, his attempt to move the hard-visaged men, 
and the repentance of the murderers after the deed, contributed 
elements of suspense, pity, and humanity which made of them 
something entirely new. For the presentation of the scenes, 
the stage directions are, as a rule, explicit. Thus in " Cam- 
byses " we have an interesting indication of how these things 
were managed in the early dramas, in the scene where Lord 

^'Act V, Scene 5. The death of Guise in The Massacre at Paris, Act 
III, Scene 2, is similar. 
^ The murder of Gloucester, Act III, Scene 2. 



35 

Smirdis is killed. Cruelty and Murder enter "with bloody 
hands," they seize him, " strike him in divers places," and then 
" a little bladder of vinegar " is " prickt." In the later plays 
no mention is made of such devices, but in the conferences of 
the murderers over the methods to be employed, quite as 
realistic effects are suggested. So we have the gruesome pre- 
paration of the table and the featherbed for Edward the 
Second, the towell for Woodstock, and the direction to the 
Second Murderer at the death of Clarence to " Take him over 
the costard with the hilts of thy sword." The disposition of 
the body after the murder is prepared for, probably more for 
the purpose of getting it off the stage than from any regard 
for historical accuracy. 

In " Richard the Third," therefore, we have a scene closely 
resembling others on the stage at the time. It is the longest 
of these imitations of " Edward the Second," this being due in 
large part to the strange introduction of the grotesquely humor- 
ous conversation of the murderers before the deed, a touch 
entirely lacking in any of the similar scenes in other plays. It 
is hard for us to realize the effect of this humor, but we find 
from their popularity that such violent contrasts were in 
complete harmony with the temper of the sixteenth century 
audience. 

Looking at these scenes as they are grouped in Act I, we 
find that they exhibit in succession those typical of Elizabethan 
taste. Considered from the aspect of stage effect, they pres- 
ented to the audience a series of situations already familiar in 
other plays of the period, but here elaborated beyond anything 
they had yet seen. The effect of the whole act is extravagant, 
these typical scenes being heightened, and going beyond their 
predecessors. In contrast to this extravagance in the concep- 
tion, the setting of the act seems to have been very simple. 
I see no suggestion of any furniture other than a couch for the 
sleeping Clarence, and no sure indication of an inner stage, 
even in a case which would call it into use if one were available. 
Thus in the murder scene, where the conversation which takes 
place between Brakenbury and the murderers would presum- 



36 

ably be in another room, there is nothing in the text to indicate 
that they are not in the room with Clarence.*" 

Act II, Scene i. — The effect of the opening lines with King 
Edward attempting to reconcile his nobles, is to relieve a little 
the tension of the preceding, but with the entrance of Richard, 
the irony of it all becomes apparent, and the scene ends in 
mourning. In regard to the staging, this would seem to indicate 
the lack, at least in The Theatre, of any arrangement for " dis- 
covered " scenes, for the sick king was probably brought in 
" carried in a chair " like Brutus in " Locrine,"*^ or Abdilmelec 
in " The Battle of Alcazar,"*^ and is taken off at the end of the 
scene. 

Scene 2. — This is a thoroughly typical scene of lamenta- 
tion, of which the drama offers many examples. The dramatic 
effectiveness of the lament had always been recognized, but it 
had never received such abundant illustration as in " Richard 
the Third." In this play there are no less than four scenes 
in which the lament is the principal motive; namely. Act III, 
Scene 2, the Queen and the Duchess of York mourning for 
Edward and Clarence, Act II, Scene 4, the Queen mourning 
for Grey and Rivers, Act IV, Scene i, the Queen, the Duchess 
of York and Anne before the Tower, and Act IV, Scene 4, 
the Duchess of York, Margaret, and the Queen lamenting to- 
gether. There are also seven scenes in which the lament plays 
a fairly important part.*^ 

Such lyric passages have figured largely from the earliest 
attempts to represent a story dramatically. In the liturgy of 
the medieval Church one of the most impressive interpolations 
for special celebrations was the Easter Officium Sepulchri, 
which represented the three Marys on their way to the Tomb 
and exclaiming in turn : 

*" Brackenbury's speech, 

Here are the keys, there sits the duke asleep, 
does not seem to indicate that Clarence is in another room when this is 
taken in connection with the duke's last speech. 

*^Act I, Scene i. 

^Act V. 

*'Anne, I, 2. Margaret, I, 3. King Edward, II, i. Rivers and Grey, III, 
3. Hastings, III, 4. Tyrrel, IV, 3. Buckingham, V, i. 



37 

Heu ! pius pastor occiditur, 
Queni nulla culpa infecit: 

O mors lugenda ! 
Heu! nequam gens ludaica, 
Quam dira frendet uesania, 

Plebs execranda ! 
Heu ! uerus doctor obijt, 
Qui uitam f unctis contulit : 

O res plangenda ! 

Again in the religious cycles the mourning women have an 
important part, as in the Chester play of the Crucifixion/* or 
the York play of the Resurrection, where the Marys lament 
thus : 

Alias ! to dede I wolde be dight. 

So woo in worlde was never wight ; 

Mi sorowe is all for that sight 
That I gune see, 

Howe Criste, my maister, moste of myght, 
Is dede fro me. 

Later in the morality of " King Johan," one of the characters 
is Ynglond, a widow, who bemoans the evils of the day. In 
" Cambyses," the Mother mourns thus for her child : 

Alas, alas! I doo heare tell the king hath kild my sonne! 

If it be so, wo worth the deed that ever it was doone ! 

. . . O wel-away, that I should see this houre ! 

Thy mother yet wil kisse thy lips, silk-soft and pleasant white, 

With wringing hands lamenting for to see thee in this plight ! 

The introduction of such a scene is especially interesting, 
because of its entirely ornamental character, playing no part 
in the development of the story. 

With the imitation of Senecan plays, a new motive charac- 
terizes such scenes, and the elegiac note is combined with the 
reflective or imprecatory lament. Taking one of the earliest 
extant Senecan imitations, " Gorboduc," we find this illus- 
trated in the mourning of the Queen, where she says: 

O my beloued sonne, O my swete childe. 
My deare Ferrex, my ioye, my lyues delyght ! 
Is my beloued sonne, is my sweete childe. 
My deare Ferrex, my ioye, my lyues delyght, 

** Shakespeare Society Publications^ Vol. 17, pages 61, 204 and 206. 



38 

Murdered with cruell death? 

Thou, Porrex, thou shalt dearely bye the same ! 
Traitour to kinne and kinde, to sire and me, 
To thine owne fleshe, and traitour to thy-selfe, 
The gods on thee in hell shall wreke their wrath, 
And here in earth this hand shall take revenge 
On thee, Porrex, thou false and caitife wight ! 

Doest thou not know that Ferrex mother Hues, 
That loued him more dearly than her-selfe? 
And doth she Hue, and is not venged on thee ? " 

This, compared with the mother's lament in " Cambyses," 
gives all the difference between the medieval and Senecan idea 
of such a scene. The violence of such laments as that of 
CEdipus*^ or of Cassandra*'^ finds no place in the medieval 
plays. " Richardus Tertius " is filled with lamenting scenes, 
partly reflective, partly vengeful. The play opens with Eliza- 
beth's sad reflections on the cares of state. Later, in sanctu- 
,ary, she gives expression to her apprehensions and presenti- 
ments, and when told of the murder of the princes, she re- 
proaches herself for giving them up to Richard, and then 
breaks out: 

Te, te, precor supplex mater genibus minor, 
qui vindicans flammas vibras tonans pater, 
et hunc vibrentur tela perjurum tua, 
spoHes Olimpum irate fulminibus tuis, 
et impium coeli r^iina vindicet.*^ 

Richard, in Actio III, after the death of his son, bewails the 
ups and downs of " Fortuna fallax," in terms that, as Mr. 
Churchill has pointed out, resemble the lament of Andromache 
in " The Troas."*** These vengeful laments are found also in 
"The Spanish Tragedy,"^" in " Locrine,"^! in " Selimus,"^^ 

^'Act IV, Scene i. 

*^CEdipus, Act V, Scene 3. 

" Agamemnon, Act III, Scene 2. 

*« Actio III, Scene i. 

*° Op. cit., page 337. 

""Act I, Scene 3. 

"^ Act III, Scene 4. 

^^ Grosart edition, pages 242 and 249. 



39 

and frequently elsewhere. In " The True Tragedy," the 
lament is almost entirely lacking, except in the scenes con- 
cerned with Jane Shore, the first of these being in familiar 
Senecan form, 

O Fortune, wherefore wert thou called Fortune, etc." 

The frequency of such scenes in " Richard the Third " has 
been pointed out. These are of both the elegiac and the 
vengeful type. In the " lamentations of poor Anne " there is 
a combination of the two, Elizabeth is purely elegiac in her 
mourning, Margaret is the embodiment of the spirit of 
vengeance. 

The outward signs of woe seem to have consisted conven- 
tionally in weeping, tearing the hair, and throwing oneself on 
the ground. Thus Tamburlaine speaks of Zenocrate's " dis- 
hevelled hair " and " watery cheeks," when she mourns for 
her people.^* Henry the Sixth sits on the mound and mourns 
while the battle rages without,^^ Constance seats herself on the 
ground and says : 

Here I and sorrow sit; 
Here is my throne, bid kings come bow to it." 

In Peele's " David and Bethsabe," the Queen lies " prostrate " 
when she mourns Absalon's death ;^'^ Gismunda, in her grief, 
loosens her hair and casts herself on the ground,^^ and in the 
sanctuary scene in " Richardus Tertius," a curtain is drawn, 
and we see " the queen sitting on ye ground w**" fardells about 
her."s» 

The lamentations often took an antiphonic form, as in 
" Locrine," where they mourn for Albanact thus : 

Locrine. Not aged Priam, king of stately Troy, 
Grand emperor of barbarous Asia, 
When he beheld his noble-minded sons 
Slain traitorously by all the Myrmidons, 
Lamented more than I for Albanact. 

^Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 9. 

" Part I, Act V. Scene i. 

^^ Henry the Sixth, Part III, Act II, Scene 5, lines 14 and 124. 

^King John, Act III, Scene i. 

" Act III, Scene 2, line 203. 

"** Tancred and Gismunda, Act V, Scene 2. 

'''Actio I, Actus III. 



40 

Guendolen. Not Hecuba the queen of Ilion, 

When she beheld the town of Pergamus, 
Her palace, burnt with all-devouring flames. 
Her fifty sons and daughters, fresh of hue, 
Murder'd by wicked Pyrrhus' bloody sword. 
Shed such sad tears as I for Albanact. 

Camber. The grief of Niobe, fair Amphion's queen, 
For her seven sons magnanimous in field, 
For here seven daughters, fairer than the fairest. 
Is not to be compar'd with my laments.^" 

Similar passages are found in " Henry the Sixth," Part I,^^ 
in the funeral scene that opens the play, in " David and Beth- 
sabe,"«2 and in " Selimus."^^ In " Richard the Third," this 
chanting quality comes out in such passages as the following. 

Queen Elizabeth. Oh for my husband, for my dear lord Edward ! 

Children. Oh for our father, for our dear lord Clarence ! 

Duchess. Alas for both, both mine, Edward and Clarence ! 

Q. Eliz. What stay had I but Edward? and he's gone. 

Chil. What stay had we but Clarence? and he's gone. 

Duch. What stay had I but they? and they are gone. 

Q. Eliz. Was never widow had so dear a loss, 

Chil. Were never orphans had so dear a loss. 

Duch. Was never mother had so dear a loss."* 

And again, 

Q. Margaret. I had an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him ; 

I had a Harry, till a Richard kill'd him ; 

Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him ; 

Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard kill'd him. 
Duch. I had a Richard too, and thou didst kill him ; 

I had a Rutland too, thou holp'st to kill him. 
Q. Marg. Thou hadst a Clarence too, and Richard kill'd him.** 

In " Richard the Third," therefore, we find frequent lament- 
ing scenes, representing a familiar device in the drama. They 
also exhibit the conventional modes of expression, as where 

«» Act III, Scene 2. 
'^Act I, Scene i. 
'^'Act III, Scene i. 

°^ Scene in which Bajazet and Aga bewail fortune. The play is not 
divided into acts in the reprint. 
•=* Act II, Scene 2. 
«= Act IV, Scene 4. 



41 

Queen Elizabeth enters " with her hair about her ears,"^® and 
where the women sit on the ground, and weep and curse and 
wail in turn.^'^ 

Scenes 5 and 4. — These are examples of the narrative scenes 
common in the histories, and illustrate the close adherence to 
sources and the epic structure of the chronicle play. There 
are similar scenes throughout this play, as Act III, Scenes 2, 
3, and 6, Act IV, Scene 5, and Act V, Scenes i and 2. In 
this act, Scene 3, the stage directions of the Folio, " Enter one 
citizen at one doore, and another at the other," shows the usual 
method of managing such a meeting in the street. 

Act III, Scene i. — This act opens with the processional 
scene of the young king's entrance into London, attended by 
his nobles. As in the funeral scene, so here, the opportunity 
for display seems again to have yielded to close adherence to 
the source. In Act II, Scene 3, Buckingham suggests " some 
little train " for the king on his way to London, part of this 
train is arrested on the road, and the royal entry is, therefore, 
curtailed of much of its ostentation. Another opportunity, as 
we see later, for an elaborate procession-scene is neglected in 
the omission of the coronation scene in Act IV, and the intro- 
duction merely of Richard's entrance " in pomp, crowned " to 
a small number of his followers. That the play offered oppor- 
tunities for large and showy scenes is shown in the processions 
in " Richardus Tertius " at the end of each actio. In " Rich- 
ard the Third," and in a smaller degree in " The True Trag- 
edy," the authority of the chronicles, and the concentration of 
the attention upon the figure of Richard resulted in such dis- 
tractions being introduced but rarely. 

Scene 2. — The testing of Hastings I have included with the 
narrative scenes under Act II, Scene 3. 

Scene j. — In " The True Tragedy," the scene of the im- 
prisonment of Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan is given, while in 
this play it is merely reported by the messenger in Act II, 
Scene 4. Shakespeare chooses the less dramatic culmination 
of the situation, as he does also in the case of Buckingham's 

*^ Act II, Scene 2. 
"Act IV, Scene 4. 



42 

arrest and death. This may have been done with the idea of 
displaying the popular theme of the fulfilment of prophecy 
which is brought out in these scenes, or it may be, with the 
idea of differing from the scenes used in other plays on the 
same subject. 

Scene 4. — The dramatic irony of this council scene is devel- 
oped in the rapid manner that reminds one of Marlowe's work. 
Here would have been another opportunity for the use of a 
curtained inner stage had one been available. In a similar 
scene in " Sir Thomas More," the stage direction reads, " An 
arras is drawne, and behinde it (as in sessions) sit the Lord 
Mayor, Justice Suresbie, etc."''^ In "Richard the Third" 
there is no suggestion of such an arrangement, for Bucking- 
ham, Hastings and others enter and take their places at a 
table. 

Scenes 5, 6 and 7. — Scenes 5 and 7, with the gullible mayor 
and citizens, are distinctly comic,®^ giving constant suggestion 
of " business," and offering a relief to the somber scenes before 
and after. Both take place in the balcony, representing first 
the Tower walls, and later the upper gallery of Baynard 
Castle. The dress of Richard and Buckingham is given in 
some detail, as " rotten armour, marvellous ill-favoured." 
The scene of the Scrivener, a close following of the source, 
suggests the lapse of time before the meeting at the Guildhall 
is over. 

Act III is constructed on the plan of three " large " scenes, 
with short narrative or preparatory scenes intervening. It is 
less somber than the acts preceding or following, and seems 
to offer, midway in the play, a series of " rehef " scenes. In 
its staging several properties are mentioned, such as the " dusty 
armour," a " head," a table, chairs, halberds for those accom- 
panying the prisoners, but no elaborate setting is indicated. 
The use of the balcony is typical. First, the elevated platform 
with the wall, arras or curtain beneath, is a part of the Tower 
fortifications, later the same setting suggests, evidently without 

^ Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 23, page 6. 

'^ They were so regarded in the days of Kean. See Genest, op. cit., Vol. 
VIII, page 692. 



43 

any inconvenience, a balcony overlooking the castle court. 
Such a change of association without change of scene is emi- 
nently Elizabethan. 

Act IV, Scene i.— The lamenting scene of the women has 
been already treated in connection with Act II, Scene 2. 

Scene ^.— The stage directions read, " Sennet. Enter Rich- 
ard, in pomp, crowned; Buckingham, Catesby, a Page, and 
others." The effect of this may be gathered from the fact 
that here, where, after this entrance, a " large," eloquent scene, 
common in the chronicle plays, is expected, there is none such, 
but all is keyed to the note of intrigue and apprehension. 
Richard makes no address to his nobles to suit the stately 
setting, but they are told to stand apart while he deals indi- 
vidually with those upon whom his machinations depend. 
The repeated importunities of Buckingham'" are not in the 
Folio, but whether put into the acting version or not by the 
players, are characteristic, and introduce another of those 
prophetic sayings which were so popular a theme in the chron- 
icle plays. Since Richard is so preeminently the leading figure 
here, the "pomp" of the scene probably consisted in the 
gorgeousness of his dress"^! and the appointments of the throne, 
rather than in any splendor in the setting or in the grouping 
of the other characters. 

Scene 5.— The Senecan device of reporting the murder of 
the princes is used at this point to keep the interest bent upon 
Richard. This, rather than any effort to avoid repetition, 
would explain its employment, for, as has been seen, situations 
are constantly repeated. In " Richardus Tertius " the murder 
goes on within, while Brakenbury muses upon the horror of 
it ;" in " The True Tragedy," the lines are not quite clear, but 
suggest that it might have taken place in the balcony, before 
the audience.'^ This scene may therefore show another studied 

'" Lines 103 to 120. 

"That Richard dressed gorgeously is shown by the chronicles, and by 
the Wardrobe Accounts which have been preserved. Henslowe's entries 
suggest richness of dress as common on the stage. 

"^ Actio III. 

''^Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 44. 



44 

variation from the play that had preceded " Richard the 
Third " on the stage. 

Scene 4. — The remarkable company of wailing women in 
this scene has been discussed. We have here a repetition of 
the wooing in Act I, but, if possible, under even more pre- 
posterous circumstances. It is hard to conceive how this 
stichomythic reasoning could have been other than tedious 
except to an audience that delighted in all sorts of playing 
with words.''* This part of the scene, which is very long in 
the Folio, was shorter by nearly two hundred lines in the 
Quarto. The scene passes into the preparations for the con- 
flict with Richmond, in which Richard in frenzied haste gives 
and repeals his commands. 

Scene 5. — The function of this scene before Lord Derby's 
house is to give Elizabeth's decision concerning her daughter, 
and to show the feeling of Richard's army. It illustrates at 
the same time the very loose, epic structure of the play. 

Act V , Scenes i and 2. — As has been already shown, these 
two scenes are epic in nature, and detract from the dramatic 
situation in their close adherence to the source. 

Scene j. — On the one side Richard enters with his troops 
and orders his tent up ; on the other side of the stage, immedi- 
ately after, Richmond and his men come in, his tent is pitched, 
and they withdraw into it. A similar scene of stage carpentry 
is found in " The Warning for Fair Women," where the direc- 
tion is, " Enter some to prepare the judgement seat to the 
Lord Mayor, etc. . . . who being set command Browne to be 
brought forth."''^ Again, in " Sir Thomas More," one scene 
is partly taken up with the preparations for a mask, the plac- 
ing of seats, etc.,''® and in " The Spanish Tragedy," Hieronimo 

^* K. Rich. Say that the king, which may command, entreats. 

Q. Eliz. That at her hands which the king's King forbids. 

K. Rich. Say, she shall be a high and mighty queen. 

Q. Eliz. To wail the title, as her mother doth. 

K. Rich. Say, I will love her everlastingly. 

Q. Eliz. But how long shall that title "ever" last? 

K. Rich. Sweetly in force unto her fair life's end. 

Q. Eliz. But how long fairly shall her sweet life last? etc. 
^=Act II, 
""^Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 23, page 53. 



45 

" Knocks up the curtaine," and hangs up the " title," in getting 
ready for the playJ'^ 

The incidents that follow take place successively in the two 
tents, care being taken to keep those on one side off the stage 
or shut within the tent, while the others are the center of 
interest. An exact counterpart of this arrangement is found 
in the fifth act of " Histriomastix," where the action even 
takes place on both sides at the same time. " Enter Lyon- 
Rash to Fourchier sitting in his study at one end of the stage ; 
at the other end enter Vourcher to Velure in his shop " ; after 
a short conversation between the first two, " Lyon-Rash and 
Fourchier sit and whisper whilst the other two speak." The 
scene of the camps on Bosworth Field is, from the standpoint 
of staging, the most interesting in the play, for it is a direct 
survival of the medieval " stations " or " mansions," and of 
the method by which places remote from each other were, 
without any inconvenience to the audience, represented simul- 
taneously." The evidences of this " incongruous," or " sym- 
bolic," or " plastic " stage, as it is variously called, in Eliza- 
bethan plays have been fully discussed by Mr. Reynolds and 
Mr, Corbin,'^^ and need not be treated here. It is interesting 
to note, however, that of all of Shakespeare's plays, this scene 
offers the most striking survival of such archaic arrange- 
ment.^^ That it was conscious medievalism we are led to 
believe from the Prologue of " Henry the Fifth." 

This scene also furnishes an instance of how Shakespeare 
used his sources in this play, in his representation of the 
ghosts.^^ The ghost in Elizabethan plays is one of the inherit- 

" Act IV, Scene 3. 

" For a fuller discussion, see Brander Matthews, The Development of 
the Drama, Chapter IV. 

■" Cited above. 

*»" Whatever share he (Shakespeare) may have had, moreover, in the 
actual phrasing of Titus Andronicus and Richard III, there can be little 
doubt that the primary structure of the scenes, so reminiscent of the 
archaic stage, was the work of an earlier hand." Corbin, Shakespeare 
and the Plastic Stage, page 377. 

" See on this general subject, The Pre-Shakespearian Ghost and Shake- 
speare's Ghosts, by F. W. Moorman. Modern Language Review, 1906. 



46 

ances from the Senecan drama, principally through the work 
of Kyd. In " The Spanish Tragedy " the ghost acts as the 
impulse to revenge, and also as a Chorus, first to introduce 
the action, later, at the end of each act, to sum up what had 
been accomplished and to plan further incitement to revenge. 
Although the vogue of plays in which the ghost figures promi- 
nently did not culminate until somewhat later, such are found 
from the beginning of the Senecan influence on the English 
drama. One of the earliest of these plays is " The Misfor- 
tunes of Arthur" (1589), where Gorlois' ghost speaks the 
Prologue. In " Alphonsus of Arragon " (1589), the figure 
of Calchas is called up,^^ ^^d in " The Wounds of Civil War " 
(1590), a Genius appears to Scilla,^^ both of which serve this 
same purpose in stage effect. In " The True Tragedy " the 
ghost appears at the opening of the play, a Prologue ghost 
as in strict Senecan use. In " Locrine " the function of the 
ghost is extended so that it participates in the action.^* A 
further development is found in " Woodstock " and in " Rich- 
ard the Third," where several ghosts appear, but, more con- 
vincingly, in a dream. The scene in " Richard the Third " 
bears such a close resemblance to the one in " Woodstock," 
and diflfers so much in this from any other extant play of this 
date, that it might suggest indebtedness to the earlier drama.^^ 
There is, however, ample suggestion in the source for such a 
scene without recourse to any model. In More's " History of 
King Richard III," it is said, " He took ill rest a nightes, lay 
long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care and watch, 
rather slumbered than slept, troubled wyth feareful dreams,"^® 
and all of the other chronicles tell of these visions. The evil 
dreams are thus described in " Richardus Tertius," 

Horrenda noctis visa terrent proximae. 
Postquam sepulta nox quietem suaserat, 
altusque teneris somnus obrepsit genis : 

^^Act III, Scene 2. 

^ Act IV, Scene 2. 

**Act IV, Scene 2. 

^^Fleay conjectures 1591 for the date of Woodstock. 

** Quoted by Churchill, in Richard Third up to Shakespeare, page 458. 



47 

subito premebant dira furiarum cohors, 
saevoque laceravit impetu corpus tremens, 
at foeda rabidis praeda sum daemonibus : 
somnosque tandem magnus excussit tremor, 
et pulsa artus horridus nostros metus. 
Heu ! quid truces minantur umbrae Tartari ?*^ 

In " The True Tragedy " a more explicit description is given, 

Sleep I, wake I, or whatsoever I do, 

Me thinkes their ghoasts come gaping for revenge, 

Whom I have slain in reaching for a crown, 

Clarence complaines, and crieth for reuenge. 

My nepheues bloods, Reuenge, reuenge doth crie. 

And euery one cries, let the tyrant die.^ 

This scene in Richard the Third," therefore, was merely a 
dramatization, in line with a popular device of the day, of a 
part of the legend which had been treated in narrative in the 
preceding plays. 

The representation of ghosts may be gathered in some detail 
from the stage directions and references in the text of the 
dozen or so plays of this period in which the ghost appears. 
Their entrance upon the stage was sometimes accompanied by 
thunder and lightning,^^ at times by smoke, as described in 
" The Warning for Fair Women,"^" but oftener they seem to 
have appeared suddenly and quietly. There is some indica- 
tion that they arose from a trap door, especially where the 
visitant is to perform no action, as in " The Spanish Tragedy," 
" The Wounds of Civil War," " The True Tragedy," " The 
Misfortunes of Arthur," and " Alphonsus of Arragon." In 
one case, at least, there are stage directions indicating an exit 
by the trap door, in " The Old Wives' Tale," where Jack, the 
ghost, " leaps down in the ground "^^ after his beneficent labors 
are at an end. The spirit was sometimes represented as speak- 
ing Latin, as in " The True Tragedy," " Locrine," and " The 
Wounds of Civil War," probably because of the mysterious- 

" Actio III, Actus V. 

^Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 61. 

^Locrine, Act V, Scene 4. Woodstock, Act V, Scene i. 

'"Induction, lines 51-2. 

"^ Bullen edition, page 346. 



48 

ness added by the use of another tongue. The ghost came to 
be caricatured as shrieking " Vindicta ! ", as we see in " The 
Warning for Fair Women,"^^ in Jonson's " Poetaster "^^ and 
Haywood's " Captives."*^* The ghosts in " Richard the 
Third " do none of these things ; they enter at one door evi- 
dently, and go out at the opposite side; they speak English; 
the light " burns blue " it seems, but their coming and going 
is quiet, with a certain solemnity that must have been particu- 
larly impressive to an audience where belief in such visitations 
was unquestioned. 

From " The Warning for Fair Women " we know that it 
had been customary for the ghosts to appear wrapped in a 
sheet, or in a leather pilch,^^ and Henslowe's entries of 
" j gostes sewte, and j gostes bodeyes," and " j gostes crowne," 
suggest some kind of distinctive dress. In " Alphonsus of 
Arragon " the ghost appeared in a Cardinal's robes f^ in " Old 
Wives' Tale," Jack must have been in his usual dress, as his 
ghostly character is unknown until he divulges it at the end. 
The most interesting feature of their presentation is the at- 
tempt to represent their invisibility. Henslowe's entry of 
" a robe for to goo invisibell " awakens one's imagination, but 
the nature of it is unascertainable. In " Old Wives' Tale " 
we find " Enter (the ghost of) Jack invisible and take Sacro- 
pant's wreath from his head, etc."^^ As for their " make up," 
it is evident that the face was whitened and that the hands, 
and perhaps the face, were sometimes smeared with blood. 
Thus in " Locrine " Humber says, 

But why comes Albanact's bloody ghost ?*^ 

In Lodge's " Wit's Miserie " one of the devils is said to be 

*^ Induction, line 50. 
»*Act III, Scene i. 
»*Act IV. 
^^ Induction, lines 47-8. 

A filthy whining ghost, 
Lapt in some foul sheet, or in a leather pilch, etc. 

^* Act III, Scene 2. " Rise Calchas up, in a white surplice and a Card- 
inal's Myter." 

°' Bullen edition, page 342. 
""Act III, Scene 5. 



/ 



49 

" a foule lubber, and looks as pale as the visard of the 
ghost."»» Horatio addresses Andrea's ghost in "The First 
Part of Hieronimo " as " my pale f riend."^*'*' In trying to 
realize the effect of these scenes, it must be remembered that 
the Elizabethan stage did not have the advantages, especially 
necessary for such subjects, of artificial lighting. The stage 
in this scene might have been darkened in some way, with 
only the light which "burned blue" when the ghosts ap- 
proached, an effect not so easily obtained on a stage open to 
the sky except where it was shaded by the " heavens," and 
where any illusory effects to be attained by strong Hghting 
from a particular quarter were out of the question. What 
conditions prevailed in this play is uncertain, in how far they 
were conventional, and in how far they show the more sig- 
nificant presentation of the ghost found in "Hamlet" and 
" Macbeth." 

Scenes 4 and 5. — The play closes with two short but exciting 
scenes on the battle field. In these chronicle plays the battles 
seem to have made the greatest impression on the audience, and 
they became the special mark of plays of this kind, as is seen 
in "The Warning for Fair Women," where Hystorie enters 
with drum and ensign.^o^ Richard's line, 

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse ! 

from the battle scene in this play seems to have been the one 
that most impressed the audience, so far as can be judged from 
its recurrence, while the stir and bustle, the noise and occasion 
for hand to hand contests supplied a realistic element very at- 
tractive to the " groundlings." 

The frequent occurrence of such scenes makes it possible to 
follow the changing nature of their presentation from the 
earliest plays to " Richard the Third." The two earliest ex- 
amples exhibit typically Senecan and medieval handling respec- 
tively. In " Gorboduc " (1562), the battle is relegated to the 
dumb show, and is described thus, 

"* Wit's Miserie or the World's Madness, 1569. 
"" Act III, Scene 3. 
"^ Induction, 



50 

" First the drommes and Suites began to sound, during which there came 
forth upon the stage a company of hargabusiers and of armed men all 
in order of battaile. These, after their peeces discharged, and that the 
armed men had three times marched about the stage, departed, and then the 
drommes and fluits did cease." ^°^ 

In "Horestes" (1567), on the other hand, the army and the 
battle play an important part in the action. It may not be 
uninteresting to give in detail the martial scenes in this, as they 
show the method of presentation at this early date. When the 
army first comes on the stage the directions are, " Let ye drum 
play and enter Horestes with his band; and march about the 
stage." After a few words, they " march about and go out." 
When it comes to the battle after the parley, and the storming 
of the city, it reads, " Let Egistus enter and set hys men in 
a rayl, and let the drom playe tyll Horestes speaketh." Hores- 
tes and Egistus defy each other, and then, " stryke up your 
drum and fyght a good whil, and then let sum of Egistus men 
flye, and then take hym and let Horestes drav him vyolently, 
and let ye drums sease." In " Richardus Tertius " (i579)> 
although a Senecan play, a popular element is introduced in 
bringing the battle on the stage. It is described in some detail 
thus, 

" Lett gunns goe of, and trumpetts sound, with all stir of Soldiers with- 
out ye hall, until! such time as ye lord Stanley be on ye stage ready to 
speake." 

Stanley addresses the soldiers, urges them to fight bravely, and 
then the battle is heard behind the scenes as before. 

" After the like noise againe, let souldiers run from ye feild, over the 
stage one after another, flinginge of their harnesse, and att length let some 
come haltinge and wounded. After this let Henerye, Earle of Richmond 
come tryumphing, haveinge ye body of K. Richard dead on a horse, Catesby, 
and Ratliffe and others bound." "^ 

We find that the later development followed closely the meth- 
od marked out in these two plays. In the York and Lancaster 
plays, where we have a succession of battles, great importance 
is given to the marshalling of troops, the marching in of the 

102 " -pjjg Order and Signification of the Domme Show " before the Fifth 
Act. 

"^ Actio III. 



51 

forces, the passing of the companies across the stage; and the 
conflict is represented by a succession of single encounters be- 
tween the leading figures, accompanied by the running in and 
out of the soldiers. In Marlowe's plays, the noise of battle 
rather than the actual fighting is used for scenic effect, as in 
" Tamburlaine," Part I, Act III, Scene 3, where the battle rages 
without while Zenocrate and Zabina carry on a woman's war of 
words ; or in Part II, Act IV, Scenes i and 2, where the dullard 
son of Tamburlaine plays cards while the noise of the battle 
is heard in the distance; or in the last scene where the dying 
Tamburlaine is borne out to the conflict.^"^ In the imitators of 
Marlowe, we find the general method of the chronicle plays. 
In " The Battle of Alcazar," for instance, these scenes are 
represented at great length and in great detail,^"^ and so in the 
other plays of the time. 

There seems to be a typical development of the steps in 
these situations, thus; (i) the news of the coming of the 
enemy; (2) the preparations immediately before the battle, 
as the entrance of the troops,^**^ the defiance, etc.; (3) the 
fight, in which the alarm, the continuous sound of fighting 
without, the excursions, the single encounters, the death of 
one or more wounded leaders, and the sounding of the 
retreat are found in nearly every scene of this sort; and 
(4) the triumphant entry of the victor, bringing the trophies 
with him. The hero is rewarded or crowned and preparations 
are made for the burial of the slain.^"'^ All these stages 
appear in " Richard the Third," the announcement of 
Richmond's coming, the march of both armies to Bosworth, 
the preparation the night before the battle, with the feeling 
of foreboding increased by the appearance of the ghosts, 
the warning message to Richard, the orations to the armies, 
with the call to arms. Two scenes are given to the battle, 

^°* There is only one encounter on the stage, in Tamburlaine, Part I, Act 
III, Scene 3. 

'°=Act V. 

"° The most elaborate scenes of this sort are found in The Contentions. 

^°' Examples of these are found in Henry the Sixth, The Contentions, 
Locrine, The Wounds of Civil War, Alphonsus of Arragon, etc. 



52 

the last showing the field after Richard has fallen/"^ when 
Richmond enters in triumph, congratulations are exchanged, 
Richmond is crowned, and the play ends with orders for the 
burial of those who have fallen, and the announcement of 
the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth.^"^ 

The opportunity for effective scenes is apparent. The 
leader with his followers, the oration, the encounter, all place 
the principal actor in heroic situations, and the triumph and 
crowning give further occasion for brilliant effects. What 
the setting actually was may be gathered in some detail. It 
is probable that the equipment for martial scenes was more 
elaborate than for any other. The parts of the armor are re- 
ferred to very frequently, and the description of the " solem- 
nity "of arming the prince in " Edward the Third ""° shows 
with what care for detail such scenes were reproduced. In 
" Richard the Third " the King gives directions to Catesby, 

Look that my staves be sound, and not too heavy/^^ 

showing that he carried a lance. Later, reference is made 
to his sword,^^^ and archers are spoken of as the main part 
of the army.^^^ That a distinguishing dress was used for 
soldiers of different nationalities would seem apparent from 

"* " According to the old stage direction Richard dies on the stage, and 
it is remarkable that Shakespeare has given him no dying words, and 
doubtless the omission is designed as it is characteristic. It is left to the 
actor to give the last expression to the state of mind which is the true 
retribution of Richard, in the spirit and character of his combat and fall. 
Burbage, the first and celebrated representative of Richard, had no doubt 
the poet's own instructions for this great conclusion, and certain glim- 
merings and true stage tradition may easily have reached and we may 
hope did not die out with Kean. The reader of the play, who has but the 
general stage-directions in compensation, may pause to bring back in 
thought the impression of the interval before the closing speeches." W. W. 
Lloyd, Critical Essays. Richard III. 

^"^ The barbarous treatment of Richard's body, found in the chronicles 
and in The True Tragedy, is omitted in Shakespeare's play. 

"° Act III, Scene 3. " Enter four Heralds, bringing a coat-armour, a 
helmet, a lance, and a shield." Then follows the arming. 

^" Act V, Scene 3, line 65. 

"^ Ditto, line 163. 

"'Ditto, lines 285 and 339. 



53 

a stage direction in " Edward the Third," " Enter Bohemia, 
and Forces; and Aid of Danes, Poles and Muscovites.""* 
Distinction of weapons is suggested in " Locrine," as Corineus 
carries a club, and Locrine a curtle-axe and sword, while the 
Scythian Humber has a helm, targe and dart. The Scythians 
are armed in " azure blew " and their banners are " crost with 
argeant streams."^^^ Distinctions were made in the martial 
airs also. In " Henry the Sixth," Part I, Act III, Scene 3, 
the stage directions read, " Here sound an English march. 
Enter and pass over at a distance, Talbot and his forces." 
After a few lines it says, " French march. Enter the Duke 
of Burgundy and forces." The drums, trumpets and colors 
of different forces are constantly referred to. The King 
seems to have worn his crown in battle. This is mentioned in 
" Henry the Sixth," Part III, Act IV, Scene 4, in " Tambur- 
laine," Part I, Act II, Scene 4, in " The True Tragedy " 
and "Richardus Tertius." In "Richard the Third" Derby 
enters bearing the crown and says: 

Lo, here, this long usurped royalty 

From the dead temples of this bloody wretch 

Have I pluck'd off, to grace thy brow withal."" 

The presentation of the battle, therefore, is seen to have 
furnished the most serious attempts at realistic staging that 
we find in these early plays. That these attempts were not 
without their detractors is seen in the Prologue to Jonson's 
" Every Man in His Humour," where he tells how in the 
theatres they, 

with three rusty swords. 
And help of some few foot and half-foot words. 
Fight over York and Lancaster's long jars. 

The realization of the inadequacy of these representations 

"*Act III, Scene i. 

"=Act II, Scene 3. 

"® Women figure prominently in battle scenes and are sometimes repre- 
sented as taking part in the fighting, as in Alphonsus of Arragon and The 
Contention, ' In Sir Thomas More Doll enters " in a shirt of maile, a 
headpiece, sword and buckler." 



54 

led Shakespeare to prefix to " Henry the Fifth " his often 
quoted apology.^^'^ 

Such are the scenes in their sequence. It is apparent that 
their arrangement is governed very sHghtly by an effort to 
obtain contrast, or to reach any dramatic cHmax.^^^ The 
structure, so far as scene arrangement is concerned, is en- 
tirely epic. Dramatic structure, so far as it is present, comes 
from the exposition of Richard's character. The scenes and 
situations which would make the play something new to an 
audience familiar with " The True Tragedy " and the York 
and Lancaster plays,^^^ were characterized by going beyond 
and making better the suggestions of earlier writers, rather 
than by actually introducing novel effects. Thus, the wooing 
of Anne is a development of similar scenes found in other 
plays, and the murder of Clarence is a direct imitation of 
" Edward the Second." There seems to be a constant effort 
to carry the audience off its feet, to go farther in the elabora- 
tion of these situations than any one before. This may ac- 
count in some degree for the constant repetition. Thus the 
wooing of Anne finds a counterpart in the solicitation of 
Elizabeth, the preparation for the murder of Clarence is re- 

"' Can this cockpit hold 

The vasty fields of France? or may we cram 
Within this wooden O the very casques 
That did affright the air at Agincourt? 

Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts ; 

Into a thousand parts divide one man, 

And make imaginary puissance : 

Think when we talk of horses, that you see them 

Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth ; 

For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings. . 
"' Pofessor R. G. Moulton in Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, finds 
in Richard the Third other than epic unity by tracing in it the network and 
the " unvarying reiteration of Nemesis " which " has the effect of giving 
rhythm to fate," — a point of view which has given occasion for an inter- 
esting exposition of the plot, but which seems to be pushed to the verge 
of absurdity. 

"" Richardus Tertins would not affect the popular conception, as its 
performance was restricted to the university. 



55 

peated in part in the conference with Tyrrel, the weeping 
women are the center of no less than four scenes, and 
ghosts appear to the number of eleven. Sheer effect is 
sought, rather than the economical and orderly development 
of the story. 

Yet from this examination of the scenes in " Richard the 
Third " and of their relation to similar scenes in other plays 
of the time, it is seen that, whatever may have been its effect 
upon the audience, this effect was little furthered by elaborate 
staging. There is no requirement for such devices as were 
common at the time, as in the banquet scene in " The Jew of 
Malta " where Barabas is dropped into the cauldron,^^^ or in 
" Alphonsus of Arragon " where Venus is let down from 
the top of the stage and at the end of the play is drawn up 
again, or in " Tancred and Gismunda " where Cupid " cometh 
out of the heavens in a cradle of flowers " ;^^^ nor are there 
as in other plays, any appearances of blazing stars,^^^ or suns^^* 
or moons.^2* It has been shown that there is a marked absence 
apparently, of brilliant scenes, such as processions, large court 
scenes, etc. Hardly any contemporary play requires less in 
scenery and properties. In the most elaborate scenes, where 
Richard enters " in pomp " with the setting of the throne- 
room,^^^ and where the two tents are on the stage,^^^ the 
furnishings were in no way extraordinary and made no un- 
usual demands. Even the ghost scene was a simple matter 
for an audience which probably demanded no greater illusory 
effects here than in the rest of the play. The greatest elabora- 
tion evidently showed itself in the gorgeousness of Richard's 
dress, which centered attention on the notable feature of the 
play. 

This play, so far as I can see, contributes no certain evidences 

^Act V, Scene 4. 

"^Act I, Scene i. 

^Battle of Alcazar. 

^^ The Contention, Part II. 

"* The Troublesome Raigne. 

^^Act IV, Scene 2. 

"'Act V, Scene 3. 



56 

of the use of an inner stage. Indeed, as has been pointed out, 
in more than one instance where the use of it would suggest 
itself as the most natural arrangement, the text seems to show 
that it was not used. The directions call for a balcony and two 
doors, but give no other indications of the divisions of the 
stage. 

Place is indicated in the text, or, in two instances, by the 
setting of the throne and of the council table. There was 
here, then, no necessity to resort to the device of placards, 
although there is no proof that it was not done. The change 
of scene is not frequent and about half of the scenes are un- 
located. 

That intermissions between the acts were common seems 
to be shown, in many plays of the time, by the presence of the 
dumb shows,^^'' by the part of the Presenter, or of a Chorus 
at the end of each stage of the action, as in " Soliman and 
Perseda," and by references to musical interludes.^^^ There 
are however, no indications in " Richard the Third " of any 
such breaks in the performance. 

On the question of the text used, the position of the Cam- 
bridge editors seems to be the most tenable, namely, that the 
Quarto represents the original manuscript of the author with 
some few changes.^-^ This therefore, would represent the 
acting version, as nearly as it is obtainable.^^" The main 
differences between this acting version and the text of the 
Folio, is that it is shorter by about two hundred lines, an 
obvious advantage in a play numbering 3620 lines.^^^ How 

^' Locrine, The Battle of Alcazar, Alphonsus of Arragon, James the 
Fourth, The Misfortunes of Arthur, Tancred and Gismunda. 

^ See W. T. Lawrence, Music in the Elizabethan Theatre. Shakespeare 
Jahrbuch, Vol. 44. 

^^ See Cambridge Shakespeare, preface to Richard the Third. A de- 
tailed discussion of the relation of the Folio to the first Quarto, with 
conclusions opposed to those of the Cambridge editors, by J. Spedding 
and E. H. Pickersgill, may be found in The New Shakespeare Society's 
Transactions, 1875. 

^^ The Bankside Shakespeare, edited by Appleton Morgan, Shakespeare 
Society of New York, 1891, gives on opposite pages the text of the 1597 
Quarto and the first Folio. 

^^^ Richard the Third is the longest of Shakespeare's plays, except Hamlet. 



57 

this number could be given in a two hours performance/^^ 
when to-day two thousand lines are considered the limit, may 
be accounted for, in part at least, by the greater rapidity pos- 
sible where no time was lost in the shifting of scenery, and 
by the fact that in " Richard the Third " very few properties 
had to be moved about during the play. The absence of dis- 
tinctly comic scenes would also further this rapidity of per- 
formance, for it is in the comic scenes that most time for 
" business " must be allowed. 

The prominence of the hero is one of the noteworthy char- 
acteristics of this play. As a practical result of this Richard 
is upon the stage more constantly than the hero in the typical 
chronicle. In " Edward the First " about as much is spoken 
when the king is off the stage as when he is on, i. e., he is on 
the stage just half the time. In " Henry the Fifth " and 
" The Troublesome Raigne," the hero is on rather more than 
half the time. Richard is on the stage about two-thirds of 
the time. This however, is not so good a test as the impor- 
tance of the scenes in which the hero does not figure. In 
" Edward the First," the Lluellen scenes run parallel with the 
main plot and claim a large part of the interest as well as of the 
time. In " Henry the Fifth," the scenes in which Henry does 
not appear are either comic or more important by the figure of 
Henry the Fourth. In " The Troublesome Raigne," John is no 
more interesting than Arthur or Falconbridge. Richard figures 
in fifteen out of the twenty-five scenes ; five of the ten scenes in 
which he does not appear are very short, as where Buckingham 
is led to execution, or two citizens are discussing Richard's 
protectorate, or a scrivener appears with the indictment of 
Hastings. Richard is absent from only two scenes where there 
is any action, the murder of Clarence and the testing of Hast- 

"^ The two hours' traffic of out stage. 

Romeo and Juliet, Prologue. 
May see away their shilling 
Richly in two short hours. 

Henry the Eighth, Prologue. 
But in the Induction to Bartholomew Fair, the length of the performance 
is given as " two and a half hours and somewhat more." 



68 

ings.^^'^ In other words, there is here opportunity for the de- 
velopment of the " star." Besides, in no play up to that time 
had such opportunity been given for the display of a variety 
of emotions and capabilities in the actor. The part of Richard 
the Third is an especially many sided one ; he is the scheming 
villain, the injured patriot, the king par excellence, the lover, 
a consummate actor. He is seen in playful banter with the 
little princes, in the heroic encounter, as leader of an army, and 
in the last moments of a tragic death. This would explain 
the popularity of " Richard the Third " with actors as well as 
audiences from the days of Burbage to the present time. 

It is easy to imagine the attractiveness of this play to audi- 
ences of Shakespeare's time. The great figure of Richard, 
grotesque, imminent in every action, varying at every turn, 
is surrounded by a multitude of characters helplessly involved 
in the net-work of his machinations — the demonic Margaret, 
half Fury, half prophetess, her awful presence giving the note 
of fatefulness to these scenes in the fortunes of the houses of 
York and Lancaster, the weeping women, suggestive of the 
ancient Chorus, the enthusiastic, wrong-headed Buckingham, 
the obtusely loyal Hastings, the precocious princes, and the 
simple, wondering children of Clarence. These in their suc- 
cession and combination give scenes of constantly shifting 
" values." How much Shakespeare has done in the creation 
of this world of interacting natures surrounding this central 
figure could be readily appreciated by an audience which had 
seen the old play of " The True Tragedy," where Richard's 
schemes are planned with a certain commonness and vulgarity 
far removed from the sardonic, yet always kingly character of 
Shakespeare's protagonist; Margaret's awful curses are in no 
measure suggested by the mournful complainings of Anne and 
Elizabeth; and the children, so effectively introduced in this 
play, are mere little puppets with large speeches. For Shake- 
speare's transformations in these respects, I believe, are 
what would most impress the audience who went to see " Rich- 
ard the Third " at The Theatre in 1594 and 1595. 

"^Richard speaks 1161 lines, a greater number than any other character 
in Shakespeare's plays, except Hamlet. 



59 

Above all, the play is typically Elizabethan. As has been 
seen, it shows in its construction and presentation a mingling 
of the classical and medieval together with a regard for the 
current theatrical fashions, which mark it as typical of the 
plays on the stage during the last years of the sixteenth 
century. At the same time, in its emphasis upon the devel- 
opment of character rather than upon action, it looks forward 
to the great tragedies of the next decade. 



Ill 

Richard the Third and the Drama of the Restoration 

The chronicle play during the Restoration — Characteristics of the heroic 
play — " The English Princess " — The character of Richard the Third in this 
play — Betterton as Richard — Popularity of " The English Princess " — 
Changes in stage conditions during this period — Women on the stage — 
Scenery — Music — Costume — Importance of the period. 

Although with the opening of the theatres after the Res- 
toration numerous plays of Shakespeare were revived,^ either 
in their original or in an altered form, no record has been 
discovered of a performance of Shakespeare's " Richard the 
Third " until the beginning of the next century,^ and then in 
a revised form, and no performance of the Shakespearian 
form occurs for more than one hundred and fifty years.^ 
During this period, however, between 1660 and 1700, the 
character of Richard the Third figured on the stage in other 
plays, namely, " Henry the Sixth, The Second Part, or The 
Misery of Civil War," by John Crowne (1681), and "The 
English Princess, or The Death of Richard the Third," by 
John Caryl* (1667), the latter of which presents a treatment 
of the subject which influenced the later history of the Shake- 
spearian play. Before examining these plays, some brief 
account should be given of the chronicle play after 1594 in 
order to exhibit the influences which resulted in the form which 
we meet at this time. 

^ For a list of these alterations and revisions for the fifty years following 
the Restoration, see Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, page 
302 note. 

^ " I do not find that this play which was so popular in Shakespeare's 
time, was performed from the time of the Restoration to the end of the 
last century." Malone, Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of 
the English Stage (1790). London, 1803, pages 347-8. 

^ In 1 82 1, Macready's attempt to revive the original form. 

* Written variously as Caryll and Carroll. 

60 



61 

During the early years of the seventeenth century the popu- 
larity of the chronicle play persisted, but after the succession 
of Charles the First, plays founded on the English chronicles 
became more and more rare, and the history of this dramatic 
form may be said to close with Ford's " Perkin Warbeck," 
acted at The Phoenix in 1633. This play is of some special 
interest here as dealing remotely with the subject of Richard 
the Third, and as being of a quality to rank it among the few 
great plays of the class of Shakespeare's epic histories.^ This, 
with Samuel Rowley's " Richard the Third or the English 
Prophet" (1623),^ of which we know nothing, exhibits the 
subject of Richard the Third among the very last represen- 
tatives in this period of the English chronicle play. 

The period succeeding the restoration of the Stuarts upon 
the throne was not a time in which this form of the drama 
would be likely to attain popularity. Aside from the unac- 
ceptableness of plays dealing with the fall of English monarchs, 
the absence of national enthusiasm, the total separation of the 
ideals and practices of the Court from those of the great mass 
of the people, the lack of connection or sympathy between the 
stage and the general public, would account for the failure of 
interest in national themes. It has been pointed out that " the 
literature of the stage was not only out of sympathy with the 
opinions and sentiments of the people at large, but was in part 
both intended and received as an insult to them." The drama 
of the time appealed to and was fostered entirely by a small 
and non-representative class, the Court, and, in addition, its 
models, form and themes were highly " Frenchified."^ 

Plays based really or nominally on the English chronicles 
number about a dozen during the years between the Restora- 
tion and the beginning of the next century. To these must 
be added, however, the revivals and alterations of history plays 
from the older drama, that now began to appear.^ The first 

*F. E. Schelling: The English Chronicle Play, page 265. 

* Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 30, says it was played at The 
Fortune by the Palsgrave Men. 

' See Chase, The English Heroic Play, page 193. 

* Macbeth, according to Downes' Roscius Anglicanus, was given " as 



62 

original history plays of the period seem to have been the Earl 
of Orrery's " Henry the Fifth " in 1664, " The Black Prince " 
by the same author in 1667, and Caryl's " The English 
Princess " in the same year. Two plays based on the popular 
story of King Edgar, one by Edward Ravenscroft in 1677, 
and the other by Thomas Rymer in 1678,^ and a group of 
plays by John Banks dealing with the events of the reign of 
Elizabeth/" complete the list until the appearance, late in the 
nineties, of Charles Hopkins' " Boadicea " and Mrs. Pix' 
" Queen Catherine, or The Ruins of Love," unless Dryden's 
opera, " Arthur," may be included here. All of the histories 
of this period, except those by Banks,^^ are of the prevalent 
type of serious drama, i. e., heroic plays. It remains, there- 
fore, to show the general character of this type as related to 
the histories of the former age. 

The heroic play^^ has certain affiliations with the " virtu " 
play so called, such as Marlowe's " Tamburlaine," or " Faus- 

Shakespeare wrote it" in 1663 at the Duke's Theatre, and according to the 
same authority Lear was played at Lincoln's Inn Fields between 1662 and 
1665. In 1667, Henry the Fourth was revived. Macbeth appeared as an 
opera, altered by D'Avenant, in 1692, and Nahum Tate produced his re- 
visions of Richard the Second and Lear in 168 1. In this same year also, 
Henry the Sixth, very much altered by Crowne, appeared, and in 1682 
D'Urfey's revision of Cymbeline as The Fatal Wager. 

^ King Edgar and Alfrida and Edgar or the English Monarch. 

" Virtue Betrayed, or Anna Bullen, 1682, at Dorset Garden, The Un- 
happy Favorite, or The Earl of Essex, 1682, at the Theatre Royal, and in 
1684, The Island Queens, or The Death of Mary Queen of Scotland, not 
acted until 1704, at Drury Lane, with the title Albion Queens, and 
The Innocent Usurper, or The Death of Lady Jane Grey, which was not acted. 

^^ Banks' plays have looser structure and use blank verse, but in the 
characters and sentiments differ little from the heroic plays. The altera- 
tions of Shakespeare's plays kept something like the outward form and 
the blank verse of the originals. 

^ For the relation of the heroic play to the preceding drama, see espe- 
cially, J. W. Tupper, The Relation of the Heroic Play to the Romances of 
Beaumont and Fletcher; Publications of Modern Language Association, 
Sep., 1905; W. J. Courthope, History of English Poetry, Vol. IV, page 
404 ; A. H. Thorndike, The influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shake- 
speare, Introduction to the edition of The Maid's Tragedy and Philaster 
in the Belle Lettre Series, and Tragedy, Chapter VIII. 



63 

tus," or Shakespeare's "Richard the Third." In both we 
have the desire to attain great things, scorn for the impossible, 
utter self-confidence, and the " high astounding " eloquence of 
the self-assertive hero. Furthermore, through the influence of 
the French romances and of the romantic plays of the preced- 
ing age, especially those of Beaumont and Fletcher, whose 
plays were popular on the Restoration stage, the " virtu " 
play became modified from martial and political themes, and 
from a play in which love played only a subordinate part, to 
one in which the sentiment of love was the predominating 
motive and interest. The hero, as in the chronicle play, was 
a person of royal or noble birth, but as Rymer says of the 
hero of his " Edgar," 

Unking'd, in Love, we represent him here." 

The heroic play, sui generis, is professedly a history play, but 
even in the time of its greatest vogue we find few themes taken 
from English history. The scenes, as in the romances, are 
remote in place, as well as in time. In contradistinction to the 
loose epic structure, with the large number of characters, and 
the introduction of comic matter, which characterized the 
chronicles generally, and in accordance with the stricter dra- 
matic structure of the romantic plays, the heroic play developed 
a tolerably consistent observance of the unities, a suppression 
of all comic elements and a reduction of the number of char- 
acters. Yet, instead of presenting in this smaller compass the 
interaction and complexities of character, introspection and 
passion find no place here, but the " tendency is for each char- 
acter to become the exponent and champion of a single phase, 
a single idea."^'* This impression is strengthened by the 
further rigidity brought about by the change from the more 
varied cadences of blank verse to the fixed rhythm of the 
couplet. 

So far as the history of the chronicle play is concerned, 
the most significant characteristic of these heroic plays is their 
treatment of historical sources. The writer used the names 

" Prologue. 

"Chase, op. cit., pages 54 and 103. 



64 

of historical personages and kept to historical events in the 
merest outline, but that is all. Love is the whole concern and 
history is " twisted " to make it so, patriotism plays no part 
in motive and little in expression, war is kept in the back- 
ground as a point of reference for the lover, who engages in it 
chiefly to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of his 
obtaining the object of his desire. If in the course of this a 
number of persons are killed, the play is called a tragedy, 
irrespective of a happy ending.^^ It is seen, therefore, that the 
history play became in this period quite another thing in spirit 
and form, far removed from the plays contemporary with 
Shakespeare's " Richard the Third." 

In the small number of these heroic histories between the 
years of 1660 and 1700, Richard the Third is the hero of one 
of the most successful, " The English Princess, or The Death 
of Richard the Third." The theme is developed from Rich- 
ard's solicitation of the Queen for her daughter Elizabeth, the 
English Princess. Richmond is the rival suitor, secondarily 
the liberator of England. To illustrate the form which the 
subject took at this time, a short resume of the play is given. 

Act I. — The play opens just before the battle of Bosworth. 
Richard is on his way to meet Richmond. But the first con- 
cern of Richard, for political and personal reasons, is to win 
Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward the Fourth, for his wife. 
Elizabeth vows herself plighted, both by love and honor, to 
Richmond. 

Act II. — Lord Stanley's treachery to Richard and his adher- 
ence to Richmond become apparent. Chariot, the page of 
Richmond, furthers the communication between the lovers. 

Act III. — The King's further attempts to win Elizabeth are 
unsuccessful, and she is condemned to die unless she yields. 
The scene changes to the camp of Richmond. The Prior of 
Litchfield fortells his success. 

Act IV. — On the night before the battle Richmond visits 
Elizabeth with Stanley and begs to die in her place, but she 
utterly refuses the sacrifice. Richard appears walking in his 
sleep, surrounded by the ghosts of those whom he has slain. 

" Chase, op cit., pages 20-1. 



65 

Act V. — The day of the battle. Elizabeth escapes to a 
cloister in the dress of the page, Chariot. Sir William Stan- 
ley, disguised as Richmond, meets Richard and is about to 
fight with him, when Richmond appears. They fight and 
Richard falls. ^^ The play closes with the revelation of the 
identity of Chariot as the daughter of a French count, the ap- 
pearance of Elizabeth and the crowning of Richmond. 

The author gives his sources in the prologue as " plain 
Holinshead and down-right Stowe," but it is seen that great 
liberties have been taken with these sources to meet the re- 
quirements of the heroic plot. This offers all the conventional 
obstacles of the typical heroic play, the rivals both to hero and 
to heroine, and the strong opposing force of the tyrant king. 
The prime interest is heroic love, the characters present the 
well-known types, the lover of noble birth, splendid in valor, 
extravagant in love ; the heroine strictly regardful of the con- 
ventionalities, prating always of love and honor; the generous 
rival in Sir William Stanley; the love-lorn maiden in Chariot. 
Richard, quite at variance with the complexity of Shakespeare's 
conception, is here a character of one idea, the typically ambi- 
tious king-villain. Some violence is done to the character of 
Queen Elizabeth to make her fill the part of the evil-minded 
woman lost to all sense of honor, bent only on ambition. The 
sentiments present the familiar themes of love and honor, the 
former expressed in the familiar terms of " poison in the 
blood," and " raging fire." The villain's theme is ambition. 
It is this preference of ambition to love that makes Richard 
the villain in distinction to Richmond, who prefers love to 
ambition; otherwise their characters are not sharply differ- 
entiated. Loyalty to the monarchical idea finds expression 
from time to time, the patriotic note is slight, although the 
Prologue and Epilogue point to a patriotic motive in the under- 
taking.^'^ The tragic note is hardly perceptible. The villain 

" Compare Rymer's canon in Tragedies of the Last Age, " If I mistake 
not, in Poetry no woman is to kill a man, . . . nor is a Servant to 
kill the Master, nor a Private Man, much less a Subject to kill a king, 
nor on the contrary." 

" Greece, the first Mistress of the Tragic Muse, 
To grace her Stage did her own Heroes chuse ; 



66 

is punished, but his fate awakens no pity, nor does his over- 
throw seem of more significance than denoting his lack of suc- 
cess in love. The national concern is almost unfelt. 

Richard's ugliness is touched upon, but only vaguely. He 
is called " this monster,"^^ and his " ill-shape "^'^ is spoken of, 
but neither of these in terms that suggest any great physical 
deformity. He rather stands abstractly for the ugliness of 
the tyrant, but probably in his character as a king, in accord 
with orthodox heroic canons,^" some measure of dignity above 
a common villain was given him. All elements of the comic 
in connection with his character, either in the suggestion of 
the grotesque or in the situation, are severely suppressed. 

Their pens adorn'd their Native Swords ; and thus 

What was not Grecian past for Barbarous. 

On us our Country the same duty lays. 

And English Wit should English Valour raise. 

Why should our Land to any Land submit 

In choice of heroes or in height of wit? 

This made him write, who never writ till now, 

Only to show what better pens should do. 

And for his pains he hopes he shall be thought 

(Though a bad Poet) a good Patriot. Prologue. 

Richard is dead ; and now begins your Reign : 

Let not the Tyrant live in you again, 

For though one Tyrant be a Nation's Curse, 

Yet Commonwealths of Tyrants are much worse, 

Their name is Legion : And a Rump (you know) 

In Cruelty all Richards does outgo. Epilogue. 

Also compare the title motto in the Quarto of 1674. 

Nee minnimum meruere decus vestigia Graeca 
Aussi deserere, et laudare domestica facta. 

Horat. de Art. Poet. 
'*Act I, Scene 4. 
^'Act II, Scene 3. 

^^ " Though it is not necessary that all heroes should be Kings, yet un- 
doubtedly all crown'd heads, by Poetical right are Heroes. This Character 
is a flower, a prerogative, so certain, so indispensably annexed to the 
Crown, as by no Poet, or Parliament of poets, ever to be invaded." 
Rymer, Tragedies of the Last Age, page 61. Quoted by Chase, op.- cit., 
page 29. 



i 



67 

Richard is sceptical, as the typical heroic villain. Thus he 
says: 

'Tis fear makes Gods above, and Kings below.^ 

To reassure himself, he scoffs: 

There are no ghosts, nor ever were 
But in the tales of Priests, or Womens Fear." 

He dies exclaiming: 

Since I must lose my Throne, I only crave. 
That nothing may be found beyond the Grave.^ 

, Genest says that in this play " nothing is taken from Shake- 
speare."^* The end of the play seems generally modelled on 
the older one, especially the ghost scene, thotigh here greatly 
simplified by representing the ghosts as appearing to Richard 
alone. Such imitation, however, is only barely possible, as 
the suggestion stands in the chronicles, and the representation 
of ghosts on the stage at this time was as common as in the 
time of Elizabeth. The battle or any portion of it seemed 
out of favor in the heroic play, so the battle of Bos worth 
Field is represented only by the duel between Richard and 
Richmond. 

The actor of the heroic Richard was Betterton, the greatest 
actor of his age, a worthy successor of the first Richard, 
Burbage, and like him inclining to the quieter delivery, in a 
time when bombast and bombastic plays were in vogue. 
Colley Gibber, in his " Apology " gives as the main charac- 
teristic of Betterton's acting the power " to keep the attention 
more pleasingly awake by a temper'd Spirit than by meer 
Vehemence of Voice."-^ Again he says, " Betterton had a 
Voice of that kind which gave more Spirit to Terror than to 

^Act III, Scene i. 

^Act IV, Scene g. 

^Act V, Scene 6. 

°* John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage from 1660 to 1830, 
Vol. I, page 7s- 

^ An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber by Himself. Edited by Robert 
W. Lowe. London, 1889. Vol. I, pages 10 1-2. 



68 

softer Passions; of more strength than Melody."^^ In figure 
he was " not exceeding middle stature, indining to the corpu- 
lent; of a serious and penetrating Aspect; his Limbs nearer 
the Athletick than the delicate Proportion ;" yet he had " a 
commanding Mien of Majesty."" 

" The English Princess " seems to have been a successful 
play, although opinions differed as to its excellence. Downes, 
the prompter, writes of it: 

" Richard the Third, or the English Princess, wrote by Mr. Carrol was 
excellently well acted in every Part; chiefly King Richard, by Mr. Better- 
ton ; Duke of Richmond, by Mr. Harris ; Sir William Stanly, by Mr. Smith, 
gained them Additional Estimation, and the Applause from the Town, as 
well as profit to the whole Company."^* 

Pepys saw the play when it was given on March 7, 1667, 
and characterizes it as " a most sad, melancholy play, and 
pretty good ; but nothing eminent in it, as some tragedys are."^® 
Genest records but one performance, but it seems to have been 
on the stage later, according to the title-page of the second 
Quarto of 1674, which reads : " As it is now acted at His 
Highness the Duke of York's Theatre." It seems even to 
have enjoyed some popularity, for I find references in the 
plays of the season which seem to apply to this " Richard the 
Third." In the Epilogue to "The Tempest," which Pepys 
saw on November 7, 1667,^° that year is represented as being 
unfortunate:^^ 

Gallants, by all good signs it does appear 
That sixty-seven's a very damning year. 
For knaves abroad, and for ill poets here. 

^^ Ditto, page ii6. Anthony Aston, in his Lives of the late famous 
Actors and Actresses, says of Betterton's voice, " His voice was low and 
grumbling ; yet he could tune it by an artful climax, which enforced uni- 
versal attention even from the Fops and Orange-girls." 

'"Ditto, page 117. 

^^ Roscius Anglicanus. Facsimile Reprint of the Rare Original of 1708, 
by Joseph Knight. London, 1886. Page 27. 

^^The Diary. Edited by H. B. Wheatley. London, 1895. Vol. VI, 
pages 200 and 201. 

^ Ditto, Vol. VII, page 176. 

^ Referring, no doubt, to the two edicts of suspension of performances 
issued that year. 



69 

" The English Princess " had been given at the Theatre in 
Lincoln's Inn Fields in March of the same year, and it is prob- 
able that the reference is to the play that had just scored a 
success. Again in Banks' " Unhappy Favorite," played at the 
Theatre Royal in 1682, Burleigh is called: 

Fourth Richard rather, 
Heir to the Third in Magnanimity, 
In Person, Courage, Wit, and Bravery all, 
But to his vices none, nor to his End 
I hope.^^ 

But " The English Princess " is not the only play in which 
the figure of Richard was kept upon the stage, for among the 
alterations of Shakespeare's plays, which, we have noted, 
began to appear in considerable numbers at this time, John 
Crowne's " Henry the Sixth the Second Part, or the Misery 
of Civil War" (1681), presents the character of Richard the 
Third, and quite prominently. Although the writer says of 
himself in the Prologue : 

For by his feeble Skill 'tis built alone. 

The Divine Shakespeare did not lay one stone, 

this play is a combination of the Jack Cade scenes of the sec- 
ond part of Shakespeare's " Henry the Sixth," with the lead- 
ing scenes of the third part, together with certain interpola- 
tions, such as the scenes dealing with Lady Elinor Butler, an 
early sweetheart of Edward the Fourth, Warwick's wooing 
of Lady Elizabeth Grey before her meeting with the King 
and his subsequent jealousy, and the marriages of Edward, 
George and Prince Edward. The great Earl Warwick is the 
hero of the play,^^ but is here converted into a sighing lover. 



The ghosts of poets walk within this place. 
And haunt us actors whereso'er we pass, 
In visions bloodier than King Richard's was. 
^ This might refer to Crowne's Henry the Sixth. Or, since later in the 
play, we have the line. 

Was not brave Buckingham for less Condemned? 
it may be that Banks was reading Shakespeare, as Buckingham does not 
figure in either of these plays. 

^ Acted by Betterton, as was also the part of the Duke of Gloucester. 
Genest, op. cit., Vol. II, page 459. 



70 

hardly to be torn from his lady's side when the battle opens. 
The conception of Richard in this play is coarser, less brood- 
ing, more blatant, and he is even more a villain confessed than 
in Shakespeare. The soliloquies giving his intentions to clear 
the way to the throne by murder, seem clearly reminiscences 
of " Richard the Third ;" and here, differing from " The Eng- 
lish Princess," he is reproached with his ugliness within and 
without, with the greatest frequency and detail. Edward the 
Fourth's speech, 

My Horse, my Horse, I must ride for a Kingdom ! ** 

suggests imitation of Richard's noted line. The appearance 
of the ghost of Richard the Second to Henry as he sleeps, fore- 
telling his death, and of the spirit who sings to him,^^ is 
typical of the plays of the time. The scenes of carnage,^® 
depicted with sickening detail, exhibit the increased possibili- 
ties of stage setting. 

Aside from furnishing these interesting items to the litera- 
ture of the subject, the staging of these plays, especially of 
" The English Princess," gives some, though slight, evidences 
of the changes in conditions at this time. These changes must 
be considered briefly. In this connection, the work of Sir 
William D'Avenant is of importance. In 1656 appeared 
" The Siege of Rhodes, Made a Representation by the art of 
Prospective in Scenes and the Story sung in recitative music." 
This musical play or opera, marked the reopening of the theatres 
and introduced several novelties on the stage. The two most 
important were the employment of movable scenery and the 
appearance of women as performers. From this time, scenery 
became an important feature in distinction to properties. This 
is felt strongly if one reads a play of the Elizabethan age 
where the properties are elaborate, such as "A Looking Glass 
for London," and compares it with a play of this time, such 
as " The Indian Queen." The employment of scenery was 
most extravagant in the operas which were now in vogue, and 

=*Act HI. 

^Act V, Scene 5. 

^"'Act HI, Scene 2. 



71 

which were marked from the very beginning by elaborate 
" machines " and " other Diverting Contrivances." The regu- 
lar drama felt the influence of this in great measure, and 
Dryden's plays, to take a notable example, seem to have been 
elaborately staged. " The Indian Queen " evoked the admira- 
tion of both Pepys^'^ and Evelyn^^ by the scenery and decora- 
tions,^^ and the latter also speaks of " The Conquest of Gran- 
ada " as having " very glorious scenes and perspectives."*" 

The introduction of women on the stage of the public 
theatres was not an entirely new thing, for French and Italian 
women had played in English theatres,*^ but the first English 
women appeared at this time, and were officially recognized 
as members of the theatrical companies. It is stated in 
D'Avenant's patent thus : " Whereas the women's parts in 
plays have hitherto been acted by men, at which some have 
taken offence, we do give leave that for the time to come all 
women's parts be acted by women." This license from the 
King was the result of the French influence exerted during 
his residence abroad, where women were commonly employed 
on the stage. Pepys and Evelyn both speak of the novelty 
of seeing these actresses. Pepys, on January 3, 1661, saw 
" The Beggar's Bush," and notes that it was " here the first 
time that I ever saw women come upon the stage," and many 
references occur later to the actresses he saw. From one of 
these we learn that Mary Davis, one of the leading actresses 
of the time, took part in " The English Princess," and at the 
same time we get an interesting glimpse of a stage practice: 
" To the Duke's playhouse, . . . and saw ' The English 
Princesse or Richard the Third ; a most sad, melancholy play, 
and pretty good; . . . little Mis. Davis did dance a jig after 

"Diary, January 27, 1664, and February 10, 1664. 

^ Diary, February 5, 1664. 

**The Epilogue refers to these in the line, 

The poet's scenes, nay, more, the painter's too. 

"Quoted in Doran, Annals of the English Stage, page 177. 

"See Prynne, Histriomastix ; Downes, Roscius Anglicaniis, ed. Joseph 
Knight, Preface; Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 22; Gibber, 
Apology, pages 90 and no note. 



72 

the end of the play, and there telHng the next day's play; so 
that it come by force only to please the company to see her 
dance in boy's clothes."*^ From this it is seen that she prob- 
ably played the part of Chariot. Who the other women in 
the play were does not appear in any of the notices of it, but 
it may be conjectured that Mrs. Betterton, then in the height 
of her powers and acting similar parts in other plays, probably 
took the part of Elizabeth to her husband's Richard. 

In general stage arrangement this period was a time of 
transition from the older non-scenic " platform " stage to the 
present " picture " stage with scenery. Front curtains were 
first introduced into the public theatres at this time. The stage 
projecting into the auditorium was retained until the end of 
the century; and much of the action took place on the pro- 
scenium stage because of the necessity, with the poor facilities 
for lightning, of keeping in the " focus." But with the intro- 
duction of scenery, entrances were made by doors opening on 
the forward part of the proscenium,*^ or by the " wings," while 
the balcony disappeared, except the portions over the opposite 
proscenium doors.** With a stage that projected into the pit 
and had a curtain in front of the scenery, some of the scenes 
in " The English Princess " would naturally become changed 
in their treatment when compared with similar ones in the 
Elizabethan play. This comes out especially in the last act. 
Here the scenes in the two camps are given in succession rather 
than in coincidence, as now the front curtain could be dropped 
and a change of scene take place quickly. As a natural out- 
come of this, the ghosts appear only to Richard. 

In " The English Princess " we have few indications of the 
elaborate staging which characterized the serious dramatic 
efforts of the day. There is here a simplicity which suggests 
the pseudo-classical French plays of the period. Many of the 

*^ Diary, ed. Wheatley, Vol. VI, page 200-1. 

^^ English Princess, Act IV, Scene 8, Catesby and Ratcliffe enter at one 
of the doors before the curtain, Lovell at the other door. 

" On the history of the proscenium doors and the balconies, see W. J. 
Lawrence, A Forgotten Stage Conventionality. Anglia, Vol. 28 (1903). 
Also on the relation of the Restoration stage to the earlier form, see V. E. 
Albright, A Typical Shaksperian Stage: The Outer-Inner Stage. 



73 

scenes take place in an open space with a background of build- 
ings to represent the royal " lodgings," such a scene as appears 
in many of the illustrations of the French stage.*^ Most of 
the other scenes are placed before the tent of either Richard or 
Richmond. The change of scene from one to the other is 
frequent. 

It was at this time that music took a permanent and impor- 
tant place in the theatrical performance. The opera was a 
new and popular entertainment, and the song was an inevitable 
element even in serious plays. In " Historia Histrionica " 
(1699), it is said, "All this while play-house music improved 
yearly, and is arrived at greater perfection than ever I knew 
it."^® Pepys speaks enthusiastically of the " wind music " 
which he heard at a, performance of " The Virgin Martyr."*^ 
George Hogarth, in "Memoirs of the Opera" (1851), says: 

" A regular band of musicians was placed in the orchestra, who between 
the acts, performed pieces of music composed for that purpose and called 
act-tunes ; and also accompanied the vocal music sung on the stage, and 
played the music of the dances. . . . The most favorite music was that 
which was heard in the dramatic pieces of the day ; and to sing and play 
the songs, dances, and act-tunes of the theatres became a general amuse- 
ment in fashionable society." *^ 

We find the " act-tune " introduced in " The English 
Princess " — here it seems most inappropriately — to meet the 
popular taste. From the stage directions of D'Avenant's 
alteration of " The Tempest,"*® we learn that the orchestra is 
placed between the pit and the stage, instead of in a " box " 
as in the Elizabethan theatre. Pepys mentions this when he 
first visited Killigrew's theatre in Drury Lane, and found 
that " the musique being below, and most of it sounding under 
the very stage, there is no hearing of the basses at all, nor 
very well of the trebles. "^° 

*^ See Mantzius, History of Theatric Art. 

*^ By James Wright. Quoted in Chase, The English Heroic Play, page 
12, note I. 

" Diary, ed. Wheatley, Vol. VII, page 324. Also Vol. VIII, page 320. 

** Quoted by Chase, op. cit., page 11. 

*^Act I, Scene i. 

^^ Diary, May 8, 1663. See also article cited above. Music in the Eliza- 
bethan Theatre, by W. J. Lawrence. 



74 

The Richard of this play probably appeared in the dress of 
the day, with periwig, and, as was the fashion for heroic 
characters, with a long plume on his head,^^ but anachronism 
of dress caused no greater offence than in the preceding age. 
It had become the fashion at this time, a consequence of the 
interest of the Court in the theatre, for the King and nobles 
to allow their coronation suits to be used for kingly parts. 
Downes gives several instances of this. Thus, in speaking of 
Orrery's " Henry the Fifth," he says, " This play was splen- 
didly Cloath'd: The King in the Duke of York's Coronation 
Suit : Owen Tudor in King Charle's : Duke of Burgundy, in 
the Lord of Oxfords, and the rest all new."^^ Again, in re- 
gard to D'Avenant's " Love and Honor," " This play was 
Richly Cloath'd; The King giving Mr. Betterton his Corona- 
tion Suit, in which he acted the Part of Prince Alvaro; The 
Duke of York giving Mr. Harris his, who did Prince Pros- 
pero ; And my Lord of Oxford gave Mr. Joseph his, who did 
Lionel the Duke of Parma's Son."^^ In regard to other plays, 
he speaks of the great expense of " cloathing " them,^* and of 
the fine performances of revived plays with new costumes and 
scenes, as in the case of " Henry the Eighth."^^ The tradi- 
tion of Richard's fondness for rich costumes was, therefore, 
at this time, consciously or unconsciously, preserved. 

The changes, then, that had been effected in the handling 
of the subject of Richard the Third were hardly greater than 
those that had been developing in the presentation of it upon 
the stage. With a front curtain, movable scenery, music be- 
tween the acts and accompanying the songs, the parts of Eliza- 
beth and the Queen played by women, the play of " Richard 
the Third " was quite changed in its character from the Eliza- 
bethan performance. The predominating importance of 

^^ Fitzgerald, A New History of the English Stage, Vol. I, page 170. 

^^ Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Knight, pages 27-8. 

^^ Ditto, page 21. In The Unhappy Favorite, acted 1685, Mrs. Barry is 
said to have played Queen Elizabeth in the coronation robes of the queen 
of James the Second. She had before been presented with the Queen's 
wedding suit. See Genest, op. cit,. Vol. I, page 448. 

^ Ditto, pages 22, 26, and 45. 

°° Ditto, page 24. 



75 

Richard in the scenes has shifted to the heroine, and the im- 
pressiveness of his figure has given place to the artificiaHty, 
though with a certain clear-cut simplicity of motive, of the 
protagonist of the heroic play. 

This period is important in the stage history of " Richard 
the Third " because of its advance in stage-craft, because of 
the new form here given to the material, which modified the 
later conception and representation of " Richard the Third," 
and because at this time we have the beginning of the vogue 
for Shakespearian alterations, which prepared the way for the 
best known of all of the revisions of Shakespeare's plays, 
Colley Gibber's " Richard the Third." 



IV 
The Cibber Version of Richard the Third 

Popularity of alterations of Shakespeare's plays during the period — 
Colley Cibber — Available material — Detailed examination of the Cibber 
version — General character of changes — Additions — Minor changes, the 
result of the effort to modernize — Cibber's conception of the character of 
Richard — Prevalent method of acting — Theatrical dress — Changes in gen- 
eral stage effects — History of the version for the first forty years — Cibber 
as Richard — Ryan — Quin — Popularity of the play after 17 14. 

When " Richard the Third," after its half century of eclipse, 
reappeared upon the stage, it had taken on a form as different 
from the original play as the eighteenth century theatre was 
from that of the Elizabethan age. By 1700, tampering with 
the plays of Shakespeare was no new thing, and had proved 
a facile and ready way to theatrical success. It is not strange 
therefore, that this play, which had always been popular and 
which offered exceptional opportunities to the actor, should 
have been subjected to the process. The motives which gov- 
erned these alterations have been fully discussed by Professor 
Lounsbury in " Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist,"^ and need 
not be taken up here, except to note that in the case of this 
play, contrary to the general practice, the tragic ending is 
kept, love is not made a leading motive, the " unities " are no 
more strictly regarded than in the original, and while the 
general " affects " of the play are heightened, no new spec- 
tacle is introduced. The success of this revision upon the 
stage may be a direct result of the fact that this play suffered 
less essential change from the original than any other revisions 
of the time. And this is the more remarkable, because this 
adaptation came at the height of the disregard for Shakes- 
pearian tradition, and at a time when alterations of his plays 

' Chapter VIII. 

76 



77 

were constantly appearing,^ and when the heroic play with 
its iron-bound canons had just passed the height of its popu- 
larity and might be expected to leave more patent evidences 
of its influence. 

The reviser of this play, Colley Gibber, was an actor ex- 
cellent in comedy parts, entirely unfitted for tragedy, and one 
of the best-known and most efficient of the managers of 
Drury Lane. His ideas of stage management were practical, 
philistine. As we are to consider him mainly as an adaptor, 
it is fortunate for us that he has left a full account of his 
attitude and methods in his entertaining and much admired 
" Apology."^ He says there : " Whenever I took upon me to 
make some dormant Play of an old Author to the best of 
my Judgment fitter for the Stage,* it was honestly not to be 
idle that set me to work; as a good Housewife will mend old 
Linnen when she has not better Employment,"^ and again 
in speaking of his compilation of " the Double Gallant " from 
several plays, he says : " A Gobbler may be allow'd to be 
useful though he is not famous : And I hope a Man is not 
blameable for doing a little Good, tho' he cannot do as much 
as another."*^ His attitude, while perhaps ostentatiously 

^ Many, of these appeared just at this time, as Lacey's Sawney the Scott 
{The Taming of the Shrew), 1698, Gildon's Beauty the Best Advocate 
{Measure for Measure), 1700, Lord Lansdowne's The Jew of Malta 
{Merchant of Venice), 1701, and The Comical Gallant, an adaptation of 
Merry Wives of Windsor, 1702. Ravenscroft's alteration of Titus 
Andronicus, which was first acted in 1686, became popular in 1702. In 
1700, Betterton revived with great success the first and second parts of 
Henry IV. The second part was somewhat altered, scenes from Henry V 
being incorporated with it. It is in this play that Colley Cibber made one 
of the successes of the day in the character of Shallow. Henry VHI was 
revived by Betterton without alteration during this same season. 

^ An apology for the Life of Colley Cibber by Himself. Edited by Robert 
W. Lowe. London, 1889. Two volumes. Printed from the second 
edition, London, 1750. 

* The same attitude is seen in the Preface to Tate's Lear and Dryden's 
Troilus and Cressida. See also, for others, Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a 
Dramatic Artist, page 301, 

^Apology, Vol. I, page 265. 

'Ditto, Vol. 33, page 4.' 



78 

" honest," is quite free from any academic pose or enthusiasm 
for reform, and nearer to that of a conscientious mechanic. 

The material available at the time that Gibber made " Rich- 
ard the Third " " fitter for the stage " was abundant. The 
last Shakespeare FoHo had appeared in 1685. Dr. Richard 
Dohse however, in his article on Gibber's " Richard the 
Third ""' has shown by comparing Gibber's text with the 
Quartos and Folios, that he used chiefly the 1664 Folio, with 
the addition of some passages found only in the first Quarto. 
In 1681, the first and second parts of Shakespeare's " Henry 
the Sixth " were revised by John Growne, and appeared at 
Dorset Garden,^ the second part dealing, as we have seen, with 
the death of Henry the Sixth and the early career of Richard. 
" The English Princess," as we saw, appeared in 1667 and was 
played at Lincoln's Inn Fields with great success, Richard the 
Third being one of Betterton's best parts. This play seems to 
have disappeared from the boards by 1700, after the vogue for 
the rhyming tragedy was over, but it is not impossible that 
Gibber might have been familiar with it. About 1695-6 Gibber 
was at Lincoln's Inn Fields for a short time and there might 
have seen the play in the library of the theatre, or he may have 
been led through his interest in the subject and in Betterton, to 
have read either the Quarto of 1667 or of 1674. The pre- 
Restoration plays on Richard the Third were probably not 
easily accessible at this time. Heywood's " Edward the 
Fourth " had not appeared since 1626, and of Rowley's " Rich- 
ard the Third " no trace is found except the Prologue written 
for it by Heywood in 1632. " The True Tragedy " was first 
reprinted from the Quarto of 1594 by the Shakespeare Society 
in 1844. 

It is quite conceivable that Gibber, when preparing a revision 
of this play, should have consulted the chronicles. We find 
that Garyl went to these sources for his unhistorical treatment 
of Richard the Third, giving his authorities, as " plain Hollins- 
head and downright Stow."" The last edition of Holinshed's 

' Colley Gibber's Buhnenbearbeitimg von Shakespear's Richard III. 
Bonner Beitrdge zur Anglistik, Vol. II, Bohn, 1899. 
« Op. cit., Vol. I. 
' Prologue to The English Princess. 



79 

Chronicle had appeared in 1586, of Hall's in 1550, of Stowe's 
" Annales " in 163 1. Grafton's " Chronicle at large and meere 
Historye of Affayres of Englande," a compilation of the work 
of Hall and other chroniclers, had appeared in its last edition 
in 1569, followed by an abridgment edited as late as 1572. 
Much later, Speed's " History of Great Britaine " had reached 
a fourth edition in 1650, with an epitome in 1676. 

As important as a possible source must be accounted " The 
Mirror for Magistrates." Issued originally by William Bald- 
win in 1559 with Sackville's famous " Induction," it had re- 
ceived frequent additions from time to time by other authors. 
In 1610, Richard Nicolls issued an edition in which, among 
other additions, he substituted a poem on Richard the Third 
by himself in place of Segar's in the edition of 1587. This 
was reissued, or revamped, in 1619 and again in 1628." 

In 1646, Sir George Buck's "Life and Reign of Richard 
III" vigorously defended him against his detractors.^^ Be- 
sides, such productions as " The Golden Garland of Princely 
Delight," containing a song on " The Most Cruel Murder of 
Edward V," which reached its thirteenth edition in 1690, and 
innumerable chap-books were constantly throwing into poetic 
form this familiar story. 

Turning now to the play, let us examine this alteration in 
regard to situations and stage effects. ^^ 
Act I. Scene i.— The first act is taken from "Henry the 

*" See W. F. Trench, A Mirror for Magistrates, Its origin and influence. 
Also Haslewood, The Mirror for Magistrates. In Five Parts. London, 
1815. 

"A course followed by Horace Walpole a century later in his Historic 
Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III, 1768, and by various 
later writers. The latest defense of Richard is by Sir Clements R. 
Markham, in his recently published volume on Richard the Third. 

"The references apply to the Works of Colley Gibber in five volumes, 
London, 1777. Other editions appeared in 1700, 1710, 1721, 1760, etc. 
A note is added to the title in the 1779 edition which says: "This Tragedy 
being admirably altered from the original, by that excellent judge and 
ornament of the stage, Colley Cibber, we shall have the fewer observations 
to make upon it." To which Genest adds : " This note shows the editor 
a bigger fool than Cibber himself." Quoted by Lounsbury, op. cit., page 
424. 



80 

Sixth, Part III," in its general plot. In the first scene, the 
events of the battle of Tewkesbury are narrated by Tressel, 
thus giving the audience at once the setting, and introducing 
Richard as on his way from the battle-field to London. Rich- 
ard appears, and in a soliloquy tells of his intention to murder 
Henry, 

Scene 2. — The murder of Henry is given practically as it 
is in Shakespeare. 

In this act King Henry's monologue is from " Richard the 
Second," Act V, Scene i, lines 38 to 45. Richard's Soliloquy 
is from " Richard the Third," Act I, Scene i, with three lines 
from " Henry the Sixth," Act III, Scene 2, lines 169 to 171, 
and the last two lines and concluding couplet by Gibber. In 
the murder scene two lines from the scene of the murder of 
Clarence (i, 4) are used. The monologue of Richard at 
the end is composed of lines from " Henry the Sixth," Part 
III, Act V, Scene 6, from " Richard the Third," Act I, Scene 
I, together with additions by Cibber.^^ For this act Gibber 
seems to have used Shakespeare exclusively, unless the idea 
of showing Henry sleeping was suggested by Crowne's similar 
scene in " Henry the Sixth, the second Part, or The Misery 
of Givil War." Whether as the result of direct influence or 
not,^* Gibber, in beginning the story of Richard the Third 
with the battle of Tewkesbury and the death of Henry the 
Sixth follows Nicolls' method in " The Mirror for Magis- 
trates,"^^ and the last act throughout is surprisingly close to 
Nicoll's story. Thus, after Henry recites the story of Ed- 
ward's death on the field at Tewkesbury and his own death 

" For details such as these I am indebted largely to the article by Dr. 
Dohse, already cited. A table of the lines added by Cibber from other 
plays of Shakespeare may be found on page 604 of the New Variorum 
edition of Richard the Third. 

" Dr. Dohse, op. cit., explains the introduction of this act in the play 
by Gibber's desire to make Richard the Third independent of the plays 
dealing with Henry the Sixth. 

^° Th' induction to my storie shall begin 
Where the sixth Henrie's Edward timeless fell. 

Stanza 9. 



81 



in the Tower, Richard, in Nicoll's poem, dilates upon the 
peaceful times to follow: 

He dead, the battles fought in field before, 
Were turned to meetings of sweet amitie. 
The war-god's thundring cannons dreadful rore, 
And rattling drum-sounds warlike harmonie, 
To sweet tim'd noise of pleasing minstrals'ie. 
The haile-like shot, to tennis-balls were turn'd. 
And sweet perfumes in stead of smoakes were burn'd." 
This is using Shakespeare much as Gibber did. 
. f ^^ ^^•— ^" *e second act. Gibber draws nearer to the orig- 
inal It IS occupied with the wooing of Anne and the mourn- 
ing for Edward the Fourth. The wooing is preceded by a 
scene by Gibber giving the conversation between Tressel and 
btanley, m which they discuss the approaching death of Ed- 
ward and the attempts of Richard to win the Lady Anne 
Richard appears and bewails the misfortune of an ugly bodv 
as hindering his suit. The scene draws and discovers Anne 
Stanley, Tressel, guards and bearers with the body of Kin^ 
Henry. What follows is practically Shakespeare's but cut 
down considerably. Gibber's only additions are the " asides " 
of Stanley and Tressel upon Anne's weakening opposition." 
The only borrowing is in Anne's monologue, where the lines 
from Henry the Sixth," Part I, Act I, Scene i, referring 
to Henry the Fifth are here applied to the dead king. From 
his the scene goes directly to Act H, Scene 2 of Shakespeare 
leaving out the murder of Glarence and the scene of recon- 
ciliation about the dying Edward. The scene closes with a 
soliloquy by Gibber. 

The changes in the details in this act are noteworthy The 

tl r^r/ *.%''T ^'^°'' '^' ^°°^"^ °^ A""^ i" which 
the hostility of Buckingham and Stanley is marked so much 

earher than m the original, seems a reflection of "The Eng- 

" Stanza 17. 

in^htnle,''"'' '''' "^'''^^ ''°"^ *'^ ^"'"^"" '' ^^^ ^'^^^-^ ^--- 

But first I'll turn St. Harry to his grave 

where he substitutes St. Harry for Shakespeare's "yon fdlow." Op. cit.. . 
Vol. II, page 200. ^ ' 



7 



82 

lish Princess," in which Stanley, as a champion of the faction 
against Richard, is prominent from the first. The romantic 
nature of Richard's first soliloquy may also be attributed to the 
same source. In Shakespeare, from the very beginning, Rich- 
ard's attempts to win Anne are the result of his ambition ; 
in Gibber's play, Richard, like the typical heroic villain, 
seems for a time to vacillate between love and ambition. The 
omission by Gibber of Shakespeare's lines, 

not all so much for love, 
As for another secret close intent, 
By marrying her which I must reach unto, 

has been attributed to blundering and misconception, but the 
effort to give a romantic vein to Richard's " reaching to the 
crown," at least in its earlier stages, was the natural course 
for a playwright of Gibber's time. In accordance with the 
taste of the day, Anne is made less a hoyden than in the scene 
in Shakespeare, but weaker, and so easily won over, that 
Tressel and Stanley exclaim satirically: 

Stanley. What think you now, Sir? 
Tressel. I'm struck ! I scarce can credit what I see. 
Stanley. Why, you see — a woman. 
Tressel. When future chronicles shall speak of this. 
They will be thought romance, not history.^* 

The " asides " throughout the scene are effective, and give 
time for the " business " that made this scene one of the 
crucial tests for the actor. In the mourning scene Gibber has 
made his changes with a heavy hand, in order to leave no 
doubt as to Richard's duplicity. He enters with an " aside," 
Gibber's addition : 

Why, ay ! these tears look well — Sorrow's the mode, 
And every one at Court must wear it now : 
With all my heart ; I'll not be out of fashion. 

^* " Cibber, who altered King Richard III, for the stage, was so thor- 
oughly convinced of the ridiculousness and improbability of this scene, 
that he thought himself obliged to make Tressel say : 

When future chronicles, etc." 

Note by Steevens, in the Reed edition of Shakespeare, 1802. Vol. 14, 
page 295. 



83 

He stands in the center of the group, weeping and voluble. 
The difference of effect between this act and the opening acts 
of Shakespeare's play is readily explained when we note that 
instead of the numerous epic scenes behind which the chronicle 
is distinctly felt, Gibber has used only the most effective scenes 
in the action, and has introduced them by the shortest explana- 
tion. A further essential change in the tone results from 
the omission of the figure of Margaret with her magnificent 
curses and lamentations, which were so strongly reminiscent 
of the medieval drama. 

Act ///.—With this act the two plays come together, in the 
reception of the young king and his brother in London, but 
all the following scenes are omitted to the end, where the 
Mayor and citizens visit Richard and offer him the crown. 
In place of these, a scene between Richard and Anne is 
introduced. In the scenes taken from Shakespeare, the text 
is kept practically as in the original. The additions by Gibber 
are interesting. In the first scene, the episode of the pre- 
cocious Duke of York taunting Richard with his deformity, 
is taken from a similar episode in Shakespeare's play. Act 
I, Scene 4, where the child is talking to his grandmother. 
This brutal touch was quite in keeping with the taste of the 
time, which we see not only delighted in violent scenes as much 
as did an Elizabethan audience, but enjoyed as well the added 
elements of cynicism and mockery." More interesting as con- 
cerning the question of sources however, is Gibber's most 
striking addition to the play, the scene between Richard and 
Anne. This suggests that the reviser may have used the 
chronicles. The only hint of such a situation in Shakespeare 
IS in Act IV, Scene i, where Anne recounts the miseries of her 
life with Richard. Gibber has elaborated these allusions, and 
along the lines given in the chronicles. While Holinshed 
gives no more than Shakespeare has used. Hall adds in regard 
to Richard's dissatisfaction with Anne, that the King thought 
" he would enucleate and open to her all these thinges, trus- 

" A similar addition is seen in Tate's revision of Lear, where, after the 
extrusion of Gloster's eyes, Goneril taunts him with his blindness. 



84 

tynge the sequell hereof to take this effecte, that she herynge 
this grudge of her husband, and takyng therefore an inward 
thought, would not long lyve in this world."^° Grafton, who 
incorporated much of Hall's text into his Chronicle, after 
telling that Thomas Rotheram, Archbishop of York, was dele- 
gated to tell the Queen of the King's displeasure, recounts the 
scene between Richard and Anne thus: 

" When the Queene heard tell that so horrible a rumour of her death 
was sprong amongst the commoniltie, she sore suspected and judged the 
worlde to be almost at an end with her, and in that sorrowfull agony, shee 
with lamentable countenance and sorrowfull chere, repayred to the presence 
of the King her husbande, demanding of hym, what it should meane that 
he had judged her worthy to die."^ 

In the Chronicle and in the Latin play, " Richardus Ter- 
tius,"^^ the King with " smiling and flattering leasings com- 
forted her," but Cibber, to make Richard's villainy perfectly 
unmistakable to his audience, portrays him as entirely frank 
in regard to his motives.^^ This scene is preceded by Cibber's 
most notable addition to the lines of the play, the soliloquy 
on conscience, which appears to be original and has been great- 
ly admired.^* The act closes with another soliloquy, also 
Cibber's. 

Act IV, Scene i. — This scene of the parting of the Queen 
from her children is a characteristic elaboration of the original. 
Act IV, Scene i. Were not this frank enjoyment of rather 
coarse-grained pathos so truly a mark of the eighteenth century 

^"Edition of 1809, page 407. 

"^ Edition of 1809, Vol. II, page 144. 

^^ Actio III, Actus III, The subject of Anne's death is treated in three 
scenes ; first, the suggestion from Lovell as to the means ; second, Anne's 
complaint to her husband ; and third, the detailed announcement of her 
death by the messenger. 

*^ In regard to Cibber's use of historical sources, Genest says : " Cibber did 
not look into History, for fear of damping his ' Muse of fire ' by too great 
attention to dull matter of fact." Op. cit.. Vol. II, page 209. 

" In den aus Shakespeare entlehnten abschnitten halt sich Cibber eben- 
falls an Hall und Holinshed, wahrend die zuge, die neu hinzukommen, freie 
erfindung des bearbeiters sind." Dohse, op. cit., page 13. 

^* Genest says rather grudgingly, " This may be considered as the acme 
of Cibber's poetry." 



85 

audience, one might think that Gibber had taken his suggestion 
from the similar scene in Heywood's " Edward the Fourth,"^^ 
where, however, the overwhelming pathos of the scene is for 
our taste increased by the restraint lacking in Gibber's. ^^ 

Scene 2. — This corresponds to a similar scene in Shakes- 
peare, though here shortened. Buckingham's soliloquy at the 
end, however, is lengthened. 

Scene j. — The murder of the Princes, in Shakespeare mere- 
ly reported by Tyrrel, is by Gibber made as apparent as possi- 
ble. The murderers, Digton and Forrest, appear and make 
their preparations. While they are performing the murder, 
Richard is present with a long soliloquy, while the audience 
evidently hears the screams from the adjoining room, a scene 
of sheer sensationalism.^''^ The scene of the mourning women 
which follows, is much cut down, as is the scene between Rich- 
ard and Elizabeth, which is otherwise practically the same as 
in Shakespeare. Gibber in this makes Elizabeth's attitude clear 
immediately,^* as Shakespeare does not, by means of an 
" aside " : 

What shall I say? Still to affront his love, 
I fear will but incense him to revenge : 
And to consent, I shou'd abhor myself: 
Yet I may seemingly comply, and thus 

^ Part II, Act III, Scene 5. 

^A passage in The Mirror for Magistrates suggests this scene. In The 
Lamentable Lives and Deaths of two yong Princes, Edward the Fifth, 
and his Brother Richard Duke of Yorke, stanza 39, the parting of Elizabeth 
from her son Richard is thus described: 

" Farewell my little sonne, God be thy aid " 
With that she turned about, and wept for woe : 
Then being about to part, she turn'd and said, 
" Kisse me my sonne, Kisse me before thou go. 
When we shall kisse againe, our God doth know : " 
We kist, she sigh'd, I wept and did refuse 
So to depart from her; but could not chuse. 
^^ How are we to reconcile Forrest's 

Smothering will make no noise. Sir, 
with 

Hark ! the murder's doing, 
of Richard? 

^ Noted also by Dohse, op. cit. 



86 

By sending Richmond word of his intent, 

Shall gain some time to let my child escape him. 

It shall be so. 

The act closes with a monologue for Richard by Cibber.^^ 

Act V, Scene i. — The act opens with the arrival of Rich- 
mond, corresponding to Shakespeare's Act V, Scene 2. 

Scene 2. — The events leading up to the battle are much as in 
Shakespeare, except that the meeting of Richmond and Stanley 
occurs earlier, to obviate a second appearance of Richmond, 
and consequent change of scene, which on the Elizabethan 
stage was not considered. 

Scene j. — The ghost scene is preceded by a long soliloquy 
by Richard, which is for the greater part from the Prologue 
to Act IV, in Shakespeare's " Henry the Fifth," lines 4 to 
22. As Richard lies down, " a groan is heard," adding a pre- 
monitory horror to the scene. The ghosts here, as in " The 
English Princess," appear to Richard alone, and they number 
but four, Henry the Sixth, Anne, and the Princes, against 
eleven in Shakespeare.^** Their speeches are longer and much 
changed. They seem to have risen together from below, re- 
mained on the stage until all had spoken, and to have sunken 
together after Henry the Sixth's lines, reminiscent of the 
ghost in " Hamlet :" 

The morning's dawn has summoned me away. 

^ In this last scene occurs Gibber's most-quoted line : 

Off with his head — so much for Buckingham. 
The excellence of this line led Genest to say, " This line is not Shake- 
speare's, tho' quite worthy of him — is it possible that Gibber in some 
happy moment could produce it out of his own head? — if not, from whence 
did he get it? — perhaps from some obscure play with a slight alteration." 
Op. cit., Volume II, page 208. 

^"The appearance of ghosts in the heroic play is frequent. Often much 
is made of these scenes by the introduction of impressive summons, such 
as the " great flashes of fire " in Orrery's Herod the Great, or by the 
working of elaborate " charms," as in Growne's Charles the Eighth. Mr. 
Ghase, in The English Heroic Play, pages 180-1, notes the sceptical atti- 
tude toward these visitants, giving as a typical expression of this, the 
scenes in The English Princess and the following lines from Herod the 
Great, 

The Dead ne'er to the Living durst appear. 
Ghosts are but shadows painted by our fear. 



87 

Richard's speech upon awaking, again as in " The English 
Princess," is much shortened, but includes a few lines by 
Gibber. The scene changes to Richmond's camp, and from 
this point keeps close to the original, though the orations to 
the armies, considered effective upon the older stage, are 
now omitted, their substance in a few lines being spoken in 
each case to a few friends. In the excursions that follow. Gib- 
ber introduces a scene from " Henry the Sixth," Part II, the 
war of words between Richard and Richmond before their 
encounter. Richard falls, and in Shakespeare dies silently; 
in Gibber, he speaks a long monologue,=^^ of which the first 
four lines are Gibber's and the following six are from " Henry 
the Fourth," Part II, Act I, Scene i, lines 155 to 160.^2 -^^^^_ 
mond's speech over the dead body of the king: 

Farewel Richard, and from thy dreadful end 

May future kings from tyranny be warn'd: 

Had thy aspiring soul but stirr'd in virtue. 

With half the spirit it has dar'd in evil, 

How might thy fame have grac'd our English Annals ! 

But as thou art, how fair a page thou'st blotted ! 

might have been suggested by the similar speech in "The 
English Princess," where he says: 

How great thy Fame had bin, hadst thou been good ! 

The play closes as in Shakespeare,^^^ with the addition of the 
lines by Blunt telling Richmond that 

the queen and fair Elizabeth 
Her beauteous daughter, some few miles off, 
Are on their way to 'gratulate your victory, 

"Likewise D'Avenant has given Macbeth a dying speech, and Garrick 
did the same, because he " excelled in this, and therefore could not give 
up the opportunity to show his skill." Davies : Dramatic Miscellanies, 
Vol. II, page 119. 

^Genest says that Gibber has adapted this "with infinitely more judg- 
ment than any thing else that he has borrowed." Op. cit.. Vol. II, page 216. 
^^ Genest points out the likness of the lines from Caryl's play, 
In this day's booty they the crown have found, 
Behold the noblest spoil of Bosworth Field ! 
and Gibber's 

Among the glorious spoils of Bosworth field 
We've found the Crown. 

Op. cit., page 214. 



88 
and Richmond's reply, 

Ay, there indeed, my toil's rewarded. 

This introduction of a love motive at the end, which is entirely- 
lacking in Shakespeare, and without historical basis, was in 
accord with the demands of the day, and seems a reminiscence 
of the absurd scene in " The English Princess," where Rich- 
mond and Elizabeth vie with each other in their protestations 
of obligation and esteem.^* 

In the examination of this play it is seen that the reviser 
has made no essential change in plot nor in the conception of 
character, but, following the instinct of the practical actor and 
stage-manager, has shortened the play, made it easier to fol- 
low, and added and heightened situations in accordance with 
the theatrical taste of the day. The play has been cut down 
from 3,603 to 2,380 lines, a change justifiable upon the modern 
stage, where time must be allowed for the shifting of scenery. 
It can hardly be denied that his changes have made for dra- 
matic unity and coherence, as well as for theatrical adapta- 
bility. This can easily be seen from a list of the omissions,^^ 

^ Genest thinks the idea of Elizabeth's beauty is from the same source. 
" Caryl's play differs so widely from Shakespeare's that Gibber could make 
but very little use of it, from thence however he has borrowed that beauty 
which he repeatedly bestows on Elizabeth, and of which, history and 
Shakespeare know but little." Op. cit.. Vol. 33, page 213. 

^A list of the omitted scenes includes the following: 

Act I, Scene i. Richard's conversations with Glarence and Hastings. 

Act I, Scene 3. Richard and the Queen's relatives, etc. 

Act I, Scene 4. The murder of Clarence. 

Act II, Scene i. Reconciliation of the nobles. 

Act II, Scene 3. Scene with two citizens. 

Act II, Scene 4. Elizabeth and the Duke of York. 

Act III, Scene 2. Attempt to win Hastings to Richard's side. 

Act III, Scene 3. Rivers, Gray and Vaughan on their way to death. 

Act III, Scene 4. Hastings accused and condemned. 

Act III, Scene 5. Scene on the Tower walls. 

Act III, Scene 6. Scrivener with the indictment of Hastings. 

Act IV, Scene 4. The wailing queens. 

Act IV, Scene 5. Scene before Lord Derby's house. 

Act V, Scene i. Buckingham led to execution. 

See also Dohse, op. cit., page 37-9. 



89 

which have been largely the epic scenes,^^ or those whose sub- 
stance could be given in short narratives. The result, while 
. gained at the expense of some touches of great significance, 
especially in the character of Richard, is decidedly a concen- 
tration upon the important aspects of the theme, and a more 
direct exposition of the central figure. About half of Shake- 
speare's characters are omitted, and thus many parts of scenes. 
The sparing use of epic scenes and the smaller number of 
characters as compared with the Elizabethan plays, we have 
already found obtaining in the heroic play, and mark the trag- 
edies of this period. 

The second consideration seems to have been to make the 
play clearer and more easily followed by the audience. To do 
.this, we have seen that "asides" are introduced, as in the 
wooing, or in the scene between Richard and Elizabeth. The 
scene before the wooing, where Tressel and Stanley give the 
situation, is also of this nature, and prepares the audience for 
what follows. In other places we have found that the atti- 
tude of Richard is made more patent, less equivocal, as in the 
scene with Anne in Act III, and in the scene of mourning in 
Act II. 

Very significant are the additions. Perhaps the most puz- 
zling in this bustling play are the soliloquies, which occur at 
every turn. These are frequent in the original form, but 
Cibber, in excess of Shakespeare, ends every act with them, 
besides introducing many within scenes. They tend to call 
attention to Richard, and to fix his character, for every stage 
of the action is closed with the hero on the stage revealing his 
motives and hopes. Other additions have been noted. It is 
seen that these are usually of a sensational nature, calculated 
to appeal to an audience that wanted, quite as distinctly as the 
Elizabethans, plenty of action, unambiguous situations, defi- 
nite emotional values.^^ There is in these a lack of self- 

^^ Such as Act III, scenes 3 and 6, and Act V, Scene i. 
^^That Cibber appreciated this taste in the public comes out in his 
Epilogue to Eugenia, where he says : 

English stomachs love substantial food. 
Give us the lightning's blaze, the thunder's roll! 



90 

restraint which brings them close to the melodramatic, but it 
is to be questioned whether to an eighteenth century audience 
they were any more excessive in their effect than were the 
wailing scenes, or the murder of Clarence, with its painful 
details and grotesque humor, to the theatre-goers of two cen- 
turies earlier. 

In addition, minor changes occur as the result of the 
new methods of staging already noted in Chapter III. The 
omission of half of the ghost scene was no more the 
result of a desire to shorten the play, than of the effort to 
adapt it to a modern stage, by eliminating the archaic element 
of representing two distant places on the stage at the same 
time.^^ The management of this whole act which we have 
cited as in Shakespeare typical of the Elizabethan stage, and 
which in Cibber's text is only slightly changed, brings out the 
advantages of a curtain to an audience which has largely lost 
the sense of " dramatic place."^® It was probably arranged 
somewhat like this. The act opens with a short scene with 
Richmond and his forces, on the proscenium stage. The 
curtain is then drawn, showing Bosworth Field, and Richard's 
tent is pitched here. The curtain drops, and Richmond and 
Stanley meet on the proscenium stage. With the ghost scene 
we have Richard's tent again, to which we return for the final 

The pointed dagger, and the poisoning bowl ! 
Let drums' and trumpets' clangor swell the scene, 
Till the gor'd battle bleed in every vein. 

Quoted by Lounsbury, op cit., page 197. 

'*A further justification of Gibber is advanced by Mr. Corbin, in his 
article, Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage {Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 97, page 
276, note), where he shows that Cibber's rearrangement of the scenes is 
necessitated by the non-adaptability of the original to the pictorial stage. 
At the same time he takes the opportunity to say a word of appreciation 
for the dramatic quality of the Cibber version, made by " the reputed 
master of clap-trap." 

^^By 1700, Drury Lane had been so altered by Christopher Rich, the 
manager, to increase the seating capacity of the building, that the " apron " 
had become much shortened, and the stage started on its way toward the 
" flat " stage of to-day. For a discussion of the development of the later 
form during this period, see A Forgotten Stage Conventionality, by W. J. 
Lawrence, in Anglia, Vol. 26 (1903). 



91 

prqjarations for battle, after a short outer scene with Rich- 
mond. The act closes with the entire stage exposed and the 
tent of Richard removed.*" We have noted that the scene in 
Baynard Castle was adapted to a stage without a center bal- 
cony, and the funeral procession, with the presence of a front 
curtain, was changed into a tableau.*^ Again, there was 
economy of scene-change in Act V, in the scenes between 
Richmond and Stanley, such as would not have been considered 
on the Elizabethan stage. 

The presence of Richard on the stage is here considerably 
more constant than in Shakespeare's play. There we found 
ten scenes in which Richard did not figure; in Gibber's form 
only three are without the protagonist. This difference is due 
in large measure, of course, to the omission of the epic scenes, 
but from the point of view of the general impression gained, 
this is an important difference. 

From Gibber's " Apology " we may gain a pretty clear idea 
of his conception of Richard the Third, as he attempted to 
represent the part in his acting, for he played the title part in 
his revision for many years.*" In his sketch of the life and 
work of the actor, Samuel Sand ford, called by Gharles the 
Second " the best villain in the world," he says : 

" Had Sandford lived in Shakespear's Time, I am confident his judg- 
ment must have chose him above all other Actors to have play'd his 
Richard the Third : I leave his Person out of the Question, which tho' 
naturally made for it, yet that would have been the least Part of his 
Recommendation ; Sandford had stronger Claims to it ; he had sometimes 
an uncouth Stateliness in his Motion, a harsh and sullen Pride of Speech, 
a meditating Brow, a stern Aspect, occasionally changing into an almost 
ludicrous Triumph over all Goodness and Virtue : From thence falling 
into the most asswasive Gentleness and soothing Candour of a designing 
Heart, These, I say, must have preferr'd him to it.'""^ 

*''It seems likely that at this time the tendency was toward a more 
frequent change of scene than in the later staging of this play. 

*^ " Scene draws, and discovers Lady Anne in Mourning, Lord Stanley, 
Tressel, Guards and Bearers, with King Henry's Body." It must be 
remembered, however, that the illuminated stage was not possible until 
nearly a half century later. 

*^ Until 1733, with occasional appearances thereafter. 

*^ Volume I, page 138. 



92 

Anthony Aston rather maHciously describes the person of 
this ideal Richard as " Round-shoulder'd, Meagre-fac'd, 
Spindle-shank'd, Splay-footed, with a sour Countenance, and 
long, lean Arms."** According to this, the conception of 
Richard's extreme ugliness, which had been glossed over in the 
heroic play of " The English Princess," here seems to be 
revived. 

The method of acting at this time and for the following 
forty years was influenced by the example of the French stage, 
and exemplified at its best in Betterton and the great actors 
of his time, while the less original performers easily fell into 
the vices which followed the adoption of this method. The 
elocution is referred to as a " demi-chant," and the action is 
described as stiff, ponderous, stilted, a result of the " heroic " 
manner. Thus, Aaron Hill, in the dedication of his " Fatal 
Vision," complains of the " affected, vicious, and unnatural 
tone of voice " common on the stage and exempts Booth alone 
among tragedians from a " horrible theatric way of speak- 
ing."*^ Gibber carried on this Betterton tradition, with more 
or less success, especially in the matter of elocution, and taught 
it to the younger actors about hirh.*** 

In dress, the old ideas of costume still prevailed. The men 
dressed as their contemporaries ; the women, whose presence 
on the stage we have noted in connection with " The English 
Princess," appeared in all the furbelows of the latest London 
fashions, wore towering head-dresses, and had pages to carry 
about their enormous trains.*^ With the increased promi- 

"^ Brief Supplement to Colley Gibber Esq. his lives of the late famous 
actors and actresses. Reprinted in R. W. Lowe's edition of Gibber's 
Apology, Vol. II, page 306. 

*° Joseph Knight, Life of Garrick, page 26. 

*® Gibber's most noted pupil, Mrs. Theophilus Gibber, a really gifted 
actress, is spoken of as moving her audience, in spite of the high-pitched, 
chant-like delivery of her lines. 

" " The Gibbers, and Bellamys, and Barrys, revelled in and extorted from 
reluctant managers, those rich, gorgeous, and elaborate robes, in which 
they looked like true * tragedy queens.' They were ' inhabitants,' as 
Steele would say, of the most sumptuous structures, stiff, spreading, en- 
crusted with trimmings and furbelows as stiff. Their heads towered with 



93 

nence of the " star " at this time, another incongruity made 
its appearance, in that the leading character dressed extrava- 
gantly, while the supporting actors were sometimes in rags, a 
common cause of complaint during the greater part of the 
century. 

We noticed that " The English Princess " was given with a 
"jig" to close the performance. There is no record of such 
being used with " Richard the Third " in the early perform- 
ances, but in other plays nearly contemporary, farces or scenes 
from other plays are mentioned in the play-bills, showing that 
some sort of after-piece was still the fashion, but that its form 
was changing.^8 'j^j^g gj-g^ notice of such a piece with " Rich- 
ard the Third " is on October 14, 1732, at Drury Lane, when 
it was followed by " Devil to Pay." This same bill mentions 
" a new Prologue to the memory of Wilkes," suggesting that 
the play was furnished with this essential, though none of 
these has been discovered.*^ 

strange and nodding edifices, built and entwined with rows of pearls and 
other jewels. . . . With such accessories and recollections of the 
majestic demi-chanting which even now obtains on the French stage, we 
might almost accept this rococo school as a type of something grand and 
elevating. These stage royal ladies were usually attended by pages, even 
in their most intimate and domestic scenes, who never let down the 
sumptuous trains of their mistresses. There could be none, therefore, of 
that 'crossing' and recrossing which make up the bustle and movement 
of modern drama. Nor was this style of decoration made subservient to 
the interests of the play. Mrs. Gibber played her Juliet in white satin, 
hoops and furbelows. . . . Clive or Woffington, when doing the 'pert' 
part of a waiting-maid, or the more gauche one of a farmer's rustic 
daughter, presented themselves in white satin shoes, and with their hair 
dressed according to the gorgeous cannons of London fashions." Fitz- 
gerald, Life of Garrick, Vol. II, pages 24-5. 

**0n June 30, 1703, Humour of the Age was given with an Interlude of 
City Customs by " several Aldermen's Ladies " ; the next spring The School 
Boy was performed with the last act of Le Medecin Malgre Lui; Taming 
of the Shrew was given in July with scenes from the same play; on June 
30, 1 70s, The Royal Merchant was followed by Purcell's Frost Scene in 
King Arthur. Genest, op. cit.. Vol. II. 

" Heywood's prologue for a " a young witty Lad playing the part of 
Richard the Third" at the Red Bull, is the only possible one discovered, 
and this was probably not for Shakespeare's play but for Rowley's. The 



94 

It is in general effect, however, that the greatest difference 
lies between this revision and the original Shakespearian form, 
" Richard the Third " is no longer a largely conceived epic 
play with throngs of characters, with archaic elements that 
take one back to the medieval drama, with the crude staging 
that recalls the earliest days of dramatic representation, but it 
has become essentially modern. It has been subjected to the 
demands of reason obtaining in the eighteenth century, and 
to the changes of a scenic stage. We no longer feel the chron- 
icle story back of it, but the effects are purely dramatic, with 
theatrical sensationalism freely introduced. More than ever 
the interest centers about Richard, adding greatly to its appeal 
to the actors, because of the opportunity given for declamation 
and striking situation. It is significant that Gibber's revision 
appeared at the beginning of a century in which the distin- 
guishing characteristic, so far as the stage is concerned, is the 
prominence given to the actor. It has been called " the cen- 
tury of the actor." It may not have been entirely without 
some foresight of this that Gibber was led to choose this one 
of Shakespeare's plays for revision, for by 1700, with Better- 
ton, Barton Booth and Quin, the age of great actors had 
already begun. 

The history of this revision for the first thirty or forty 
years of its existence is rather meager. We know that Gibber 
played the principal part until 1733, though with no great 
success. Mr. Lowe, in his edition of the " Apology,"*"^ gives 
the following cast for the play in 1700: 

" King Henry the Sixth, designed for Mr. Wilks. 

Edward, Prince of Wales Mrs. Allison. 

evidence against this being a Shakespearian Richard the Third is dis- 
cussed by F. G. Fleay in his History of the London Stage, page 354. The 
play, according to Sir Henry Herbert's entry in the Office Book, be- 
longed to the Palsgrave Company. This, in 1637, had the name of 
Prince Charles' Men and was playing at the Red Bull. J. P. Collier, in 
Annals of the Stage, page 18, notes that in 1627, Sir Henry Herbert, 
Master of Revels, was paid £ 5 by the King's Players, then at Blackfriars, 
to prevent the players at the Red Bull from performing Shakespeare's 
plays. 

^Vol. II, page 288. 



95 

Richard Duke of York Miss Chock. 

Richard Duke of Gloucester Mr. Gibber. 

Buckingham Mr. Powel. 

Stanley Mr. Mills 

Norfolk Mr. Simpson. 

Ratcliff Mr. Kent. 

Catesby Mr. Thomas. 

Henry, Earl of Richmond Mr. Evans. 

Oxford Mr. Fairbank. 

Queen Elizabeth Mrs. Knight. 

Lady Anne Mrs. Rogers. 

Gicely"*^ Mrs. Powell." 

Gibber, in his " Apology," says that he copied Sandford, his 
ideal for Richard, then playing at Lincoln's Inn Fields and 
therefore not available for Gibber's Gompany, in his interpre- 
tation of the part, and did it so well that Sir John Vanbrugh 
complimented him upon the imitation, Gontemporary criti- 
cism, however, is not so enthusiastic. " The Laureate," a 
furious attack upon Gibber, says that " he screamed thro' four 
Acts without Dignity or Decency," and in the fifth, " degener- 
ated all at once into Sir Novelty " ( Gibber's favorite comedy 
character), and " when he was kill'd by Richmond, one might 
plainly perceive that the good People were not better pleas'd 
that so execrable Tyrant was destroy'd, than that so execrable 
an Actor was silent."^^ Davies says : " Gibber had two pas- 
sions, which constantly exposed him to severe censure, and 
sometimes the highest ridicule: his writing tragedy and acting 
tragic characters. In both he persisted to the last; for, after 
he had left the stage for many years, he acted Richard III, and 
very late in life produced his Papal Tyranny. . . . The truth 
is, Gibber was endured in this and other tragic parts, on ac- 
count of his general merit in comedy."^* Later he says, 
" Gibber persisted so obstinately in acting parts in tragedy, 
that at last the public grew out of patience, and fairly hissed 
him off the stage."^* 

°^ /. e., the Duchess of York whose name was Gicely Neville. 

^The Laureate: or the right side of Colley Cibber, Esq., etc. London, 
1740. Quoted by R. W. Lowe, in his edition of the Apology, Vol. I, page 
140, note. 

■^Davies, Dramatic Miscellanies, Vol. Ill, page 471. 

'^ Ditto, page 469. 



96 

Added to the disabilities of the chief actor of the part dur- 
ing the first decades of its history, an unlooked-for misfortune 
befel it. In 1698, Jeremy Taylor had lashed the immorality 
of the contemporary stage so effectively that not only were the 
playwrights put to shame, but the Licenser of Plays, Charles 
Killigrew, was stirred to unwonted zeal, which found a fitting 
object in this very play. Gibber gives this account of his ill- 
usage : 

" When Richard the Third (as I alter'd it from Shakespear) came from 
his hands for the Stage, he expugn'd the whole first Act without sparing 
a line of it. This extraordinary Stroke of Sic volo occasioned my applying 
to him for the small Indulgence of a Speech or two, that the other four 
Acts might limp on with a little less absurdity ! no ! he had not leisure to 
consider what might be separately inoffensive. He had an objection to 
the whole Act, and the Reason he gave for it was, that the distresses of 
King Henry the Sixth, who is killed by Richard in the first Act, would put 
weak People too much in mind of King James, then living in France ; . , . 
In a Word, we were forc'd, for some few Years, to let the Play take its 
Fate with only four Acts divided into five ; by the Loss of so considerable 
Limb, may we not modestly suppose it was robbed of at least a fifth Part 
of that Favour it afterwards met with? For tho' this first Act was at 
last recovered, and made the Play whole again, yet Relief came too late 
to repay me for Pains I had taken with it." ^° 

In this lopped condition the play evidently appeared, until 
George I, in the patent granted to Sir Richard Steele and his 
assignees, of which Gibber was one, made the managers the 
sole judges of what plays should be put on their stage. This 
was in 1715. These circumstances may account for the slow- 
ness with which the play apparently won its way to popular 
favor, for not until about this time does it seem to have ap- 
peared with any frequency on the boards.^^ 

How many times " Richard the Third " was played in 1700, 
I have been unable to ascertain.^'^ The next performance 

^^ Apology, Vol. I, pages 275-6. 

"^ In his address to the reader in Ximena, 1719, Cibber says, "Every 
Auditor, whose Memory will give him Leave, cannot but know, that 
Richard the third, which I alter'd from Shakespear, did not raise me Five 
Pounds on the Third Day, though for several years since, it has seldom, 
or never failed of a crowded Audience." 

"Its first appearance was in Lent, 1700. Genest quotes an advertise- 



97 

recorded by Genest is in 1704, when it was played at Drury 
Lane on April 4th, for Gibber's benefit, after a lapse of three 
years. It next appeared at the Haymarket Theatre for a 
benefit for Mrs. Porter, on March 27, 1710, acted by the 
Drury Lane Gompany.^« There was another lapse of three 
years before it was given again, at Drury Lane, on February 
14, 1713. but from this time it appeared with greater fre- 
quency,^^ which, together with other evidence, suggests that 
the strictures of the Licenser were perhaps disregarded before 
they were formally removed, and that the first act was prob- 
ably restored.'"' 

For the first twenty years, the play seems to have been acted 
exclusively by the Drury Lane Gompany, with Gibber as the 
only Richard, and Wilks as Henry the Sixth.^^ In March, 

ment at the end of Manning's Generous Choise, which came out in Lent of 
that year, in which it is said, "This day is published the last new Tragedy 
caHed Richard the 3rd, written by Mr. Gibber." Op. cit., Vol. II, page ^19 
Malone says that Richard the Third "was once performed at Drury 
Lane in 1703, and lay dormant from that time to the 28th of Jan 1710 
when It was revived at the Opera House in Haymarket." History of the 
Stage, page 347. The discrepancy of dates is due to Malone's use of the 
old style in dating. 

_ ^^ Malone observes that after Rowe's edition of Shakespeare's Works 
in 1709, the exhibition of his plays became more frequent than before 
Op. cit., page 348. 

-"As early as 1 710, Genest gives Henry the Sixth in the cast. This may 
mean that at that date the restriction was practically rempved or disre- 
garded. An early attempt had been made to use Act I, as seen from 
Genest s record: "In the Daily Courant for Oct. i.th [170.] Pinketham 
proposed to present the town on his night with a Medley which was to con 
sist-ist of the death of King Henry 6th-2dly of scenes from Aesop-and 
3dly of the School Boy-Richard the 3d, the Beau, and Major Rakish by 
Pinketham." This Medley was not given, but "by particular desire" the 
play was altered to Love makes a Man. Op. cit.. Vol. II, pages 254-5 The 
"particular desire" may have emanated from the Licenser's oifice. ' 
"In 1 72 1 the principal parts were taken as follows. 

King Henry the Sixth Mr. Wilks. 

Edward, Prince of Wales Mr. Norris, Jun 

Richard, Duke of York Mr. Lindar. 

Richard, Duke of Gloucester Mr. Gibber. 

Duke of Buckingham Mr. Mills. ' 

Henry, Earl of Richmond Mr! Ryan! 



98 

1 72 1, however, it was given at the theatre in Lincoln's Inn 
Fields, with Ryan as Richard, Boheme as Henry the Sixth, 
Quin as Buckingham, the other characters being unimportant.®^ 
This was the beginning of that series of rival performances of 
" Richard the Third " which continued throughout the century, 
and in which the most noted actors of the time took part. For 
some reason " Richard the Third " does not appear in the play- 
bills of Drury Lane between 1720 and 1726, but the play was 
frequently given at Lincoln's Inn Fields. There Ryan played 
the part of Richard until about 1740, when he shared it with 
Quin, both of these men having performed in it at Drury Lane 
years before, Ryan as Richmond, and Quin as Lieutenant of 
the Tower, the part in which he first attracted attention by his 
painstaking representation of an unimportant character. 
Ryan's Richard was a rugged conception, of more individuality 
than those preceding him, and one which Garrick confessed he 
took in its general features as the model for his own.®^ The 
company from Lincoln's Inn Fields moved to their new theatre 
in Covent Garden in December, 1732, where Ryan, with the 
help of Quin for several years, still held the part, until the 
middle of the century and the advent of a new generation of 
actors. 

In the fall of 1726, Drury Lane took up the play again, with 
the former cast for the principal parts, Gibber continuing to 
play Richard until his retirement in 1733.®* By this time. 

Lieutenant of the Tower Mr. Quin. 

Elizabeth Mrs. Porter. 

Lady Anne Mrs. Horton. 

Duchess of York Mrs. Baker. 

^^Lady Mary Montague in a letter from Paris, written in 1718, speaks 
thus of the English actors of the time: " I have seen the tragedy of Bajazet 
so well represented, I think our best actors can be only said to speak,, 
but these to feel ; and 'tis certainly infinitely more moving to see a man- 
appear unhappy, than to hear him say that he is so, with a jolly face, and 
a stupid smirk in his countenance." 

"' Doran, Their Majesties' Servants, Vol. II, page 41. Garrick went to 
see Ryan for the purpose of laughing at his uncouth figure, and rasping 
pronunciation, but was surprised to find great excellence, and much to 
introduce into his own representation. 

''^ Gibber appeared once more in the part in 1739. Mr. Lowe remarks. 



99 



Qum had joined the Drury Lane Company, and Gibber's part 
fell to him. Qum carried on the Betterton tradition of the 
heroic " manner in his solemn, ponderous, chant-like, monot- 
onous pronunciation, which gave an effect of oppressive dig- 
nity.^s Cumberland says of Quin's acting: "Unable to ex- 
press emotions, whether violent or tender, he was forced or 
languid in action, and ponderous and sluggish in movement 
In great characters of tragedy he was lost, and the most trust- 
worthy of contemporary critics declares that people will re- 
member with pleasure his Brutus and his Cato, and wish to 
forget his Richard and his Lear/'^e 

Such was the situation up to the epoch-making performances 
of Garnck. From the time of the appearance of the play with 
the first act restored, about 1714, there had been hardly a sea- 
son when it was not played; for most of this time it was 
appearing at both houses,«^ and had been undertaken by every 

that during the dull period in the theater between 1730 and Garrick, when 
Qum was the great man, Gibber's reappearances after retirement must have 
had an importance and interest which they lacked after Garrick's advent. 
His eyes, in gloomy socket taught to roll, 
Proclaim'd the sullen ' habit of his soul ' :' 
Heavy and phlegmatic he trod the stage, 
Too proud for tenderness, too dull for rage. 
,3^ Churchill: The Rosciad, lines 963-7. 

Quoted by Knight, op. cit., pages 62-3. 

to 7" "t"'"'""-'" '"' performances at the London theatres, the play seems 

o have been given at the great fairs during the period of their greatest 

fame, 1714-1750. All the leading actors, with the exception of Garrick 

acted in these booths the plays popular in London. We have a record of 



X -.,- ^-^t--^-'-^ '" ^Kjymuii. vve nave a re 
the appearance of Richard the Third at Bartholomew Fair in 1738 The 
Grea^T?'." fo"ows: "At Turbutt's and Yates' (from Goodmans Fields) 
Great Theatrical Booth, formerly Hallam's, . . . will be presented a 

?^:r^!!L^!":^"^^!- -^ --!- «^-- - -^ Lo^es of Kin: 



■c-j J ^, , --"v-xv-^xi. iiiatuiy ui tne i^oves ot King 

Edward the 4th and his famous Concubine, Jane Shore in Shoreditch, the 

wihthe o r "^"Z °''" ^™^ '^^^°"^^^ passages-interspersed 

r nt. Vi T'l "°"' °' ^" ^"'^°"^ L-kbrains, his man Wezel, and 
Captam B underbuss." King Edward was played by Dighton, King Richard 
by Taswell, and Jane Shore by Mrs. Lamball. Genest, op. cit Vol X 

tTn fr"' tT ''" ''""" "" advertisement of King in the' Country, 
taken from the first part of Heywood's Edward the Fourth. 



100 

great actor, with the exception of Barton Booth, since 
Betterton.^^ 

°' During these years, an important play dealing with Richard the Third 
had appeared, Nicholas Rowe's Jane Shore, in 171 3. This play, which was 
constantly upon the stage until far into the nineteenth century, presents 
but a subordinate side of Richard's character, and develops the Hastings 
scenes from Shakespeare's Richard the Third, which Gibber had omitted. 
It throws light upon Quin's idea of the character of Richard that he 
called Gloster in this play " one of his strut and whisker parts." Davies, 
op. cit., page 213. 

Some interest may be attached to a play noticed by Genest as acted but 
once at Drury Lane in 1723 : An Historical Tragedy of the Civil Wars 
between the Houses of York and Lancaster, etc., by Theophilus Gibber, son 
of the adaptor of Richard the Third. The principal additions were the 
love scenes between Price Edward and Lady Anne, and a few speeches by 
Gibber. The author played the Prince and the poet Savage the Duke of 
York. 



V 
From Garrick to Irving — 1741-1897 

Garrick as Richard the Third — Popularity — Revolution in staging at 
Drury Lane — Work of De Loutherbourg — John Philip Kemble — New Drury 
Lane — Capon — Elaborate revivals of old play — Archeological reforms at 
Covent Garden — Kemble's version of " Richard the Third " — Edmund Kean 
— Charles William Macready — His attempt to " restore " " Richard the 
Third " — Work of Samuel Phelps at Sadler's Wells — ^Revivals of Charles 
Kean at the Princess — Henry Irving — His restoration of the Shakespearian 
text — General summary. 

For the first forty years of its history, Gibber's version 
had been the subject of no great or original interpretation, 
nor had it made any considerable stir in the theatrical world, 
but with Garrick, a new era in its history began. In Goodman's 
Fields a theater had been fitted up in 1729, that without a 
license, and under the guise of giving concerts and adding 
gratuitously an after-play, had been running with some success. 
It was here that Garrick appeared as Richard the Third on 
October 19th, 1741. The play-bill read as follows: 

October 19th, 1741. 

Goodman's Fields. 

At the late Theatre, in Goodman's Fields, this day, will be performed a 

Concert of Vocal and Instrumental Music, divided into Two Parts. 

Tickets at three, two and one shilling. 

Places for the Boxes to be taken at the Fleece 

Tavern, next the Theatre. 

N. B. Between the two parts of the Concert, will be presented, 

an Historical Play called, 

The Life and Death of 

King Richard the Third. 

Containing the distress of K. Henry VI. 

The artful acquisition of the Crown 

by King Richard. 

The murder of young King Edward V, 

■ and his brother in the Tower. 

101 



102 

The landing of the Earl of Richmond ; and the death of King Richard in 

the naemorable battle of Bosworth-field, being the last that was 

fought between the houses of York and Lancaster. 

With many other true Historical passages. 
The part of King Richard by a Gentleman (who never 
appeared on any stage), 
King Henry by Mr. Giffard ; Richmond, Mr. Marshall; Prince Edward by 
Miss Hippisley ; Duke of York, Miss Naylor ; Duke of Buckingham, Mr. 
Patterson; Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Blakes ; Lord Stanley, Mr. Pagett; Ox- 
ford, Mr. Vaughan; Tressel, Mr. W. Giffard; Catesby, Mr. Marr ; Ratcliff, 
Mr. Crofts; Blunt, Mr. Naylor; Tyrrel, Mr. Puttenham ; Lord Mayor, Mr. 
Dunstall; The Queen, Mrs. Steel; Duchess of York, Mrs. Yates; 
And the part of Lady Anne 
By Mrs. Giffard. 
With Entertainments of Dancing, 
By Mens. Froment, Madam Duvall, 
and the two Masters and 

Miss Granier. 

To which will be added 

A Ballad Opera of One Act, called. 

The Virgin Unmask'd, 

The part of Lucy by Miss Hippisley. 

Both which will be performed gratis, by persons 

for their diversion. 
The Concert will begin exactly at six o'clock.^ 

This and the following performances created an unprece- 
dented sensation. The " Daily Post " spoke of its reception 
as " the most extraordinary and great that was ever known on 
such an occasion,"^ Garrick's acting came to the public as a 
revelation, and as something so entirely different from what 
they were used to in Quin, Delane and others on the stage 
at the time, that it appeared to them that he had invented an 
art. Davies, a contemporary biographer, says: 

" Mr. Garrick's easy and familiar, yet forcible style in speaking and act- 
ing, at first threw the critics into some hesitation concerning the novelty 
as well as propriety of his manner. They had been long accustomed to an 
elevation of the voice, with a sudden mechanical depression of its tones, 
calculated to excite admiration, and to entrap applause. To the just 
modulation of the words, and concurring expression of the features from 
the genuine workings of nature, they had been strangers, at least for some 

^ Given by Knight, in David Garrick, London, 1894, page 22-3. 
^ Quoted by Knight, op. cit., page 28. 



103 

time. But after he had gone through a variety of scenes, in which he gave 
evident proof of consummate art, and perfect knowledge of character, 
their doubts were turned into surprise and astonishment, from which they 
relieved themselves by loud and reiterated applause. . . . When news was 
brought to Richard, that the duke of Buckingham was taken, Garrick's look 
and action, when he pronounced the words 

Off with his head ! 
So much for Buckingham ! 

were so significant and important, from his visible enjoyment of the inci- 
dent, that several loud shouts of approbation proclaimed the triumph of 
the actor and satisfaction of the audience. The death of Richard was 
accompanied with the loudest gratulations of applause."* 

Another contemporary, Arthur Murphy, gives a more de- 
tailed but no less enthusiastic description of Garrick's Richard : 

" The moment he entered the scene, the character he assumed was 
visible in his countenance ; the power of his imagination was such, that he 
transformed himself into the very man ; the passions rose in rapid suc- 
cession, and, before he uttered a word, were legible in every feature of 
that various face. His look, his voice, his attitude, changed with every 
sentiment. . . . The rage and rapidity with which he spoke. 
The North ! what do they in the North, 
When they should serve their Sovereign in the West? 

made a most astonishing impression on the audience. His soliloquy in the 
tent scene discovered the inner man. . . . When he started from his dream, 
he was a spectacle of horror : He called out in a manly tone. 
Give me another horse ; 

He paused, and with a countenance of dismay, advanced, crying out in a 
tone of distress, 

Bind up my wounds ; 
and then, falling on his knees, said in the most piteous accent, 

Have mercy Heaven ; 
In all this the audience saw an exact imitation of nature. . . . When in 
Bosworth field, he roared out, 

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse ! 

All was rage, fury, and almost reality. ... It is no wonder that an actor 
thus accomplished made, on the very first night, a deep impression on the 
audience. His fame ran through the metropolis. The public went in 

* Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick, Esq., Interspersed with Char- 
acters and Anecdotes of His Theatrical Contemporaries, The Whole forming 
a history of the Stage, whch includes a period of Thirty-six Years. By 
Thomas Davies. 2 Vols. London, 1780. 



104 

crowds to see a young performer, who came forth at once a complete 
master of his art."* 

The Dramatic Censor shows Garrick's physical fitness for 
the part: 

" The Public have set up Mr. Garrick as a standard of perfection in this 
laborious, difficult part ; and if we consider the essentials, his claim to such 
distinction will immediately appear indisputable ; a very deformed person 
never rises above, and seldom up to the middle stature ; it is generally 
attended with an acuteness of features and sprightliness of eyes ; in these 
three natural points or Roscius stands unexceptionable. . . . MR. GAR- 
RICK also preserves a happy medium, and dwindles neither into the 
buffoon or brute ; one or both of which this character is made by most 
performers." 

It seems then, that the innovations of Garrick that called 
forth Quin's exclamation, "If this young fellow be right, then 
we have been all wrong," consisted in his identifying himself 
with the part as the actors of the heroic, traditional school 
never did, his abandonment of the " demi-chant," and his 
spontaneity and freedom of deportment. Among the scenes 
which took the popular favor were the one in Baynard Castle 
when, with an expressive gesture, he threw the prayer-book 
from him after the Lord Mayor had retired,^ the tent scene, 
much talked of, and painted by Hogarth, and the death 
scene, Garrick being noted for acting such situations effec- 
tively. In these scenes he freed the interpretation of Richard 
from the conventional delineation of the " wicked tyrant " who 
was savage and furious, and nothing else. But in these char- 
acteristics he was not unheralded. We have seen that Ryan's 
sincere and vigorous acting had suggested much to Garrick, 
and as early as 1725, Macklin, a young Irish actor, had tried 
to introduce a more natural style at Lincoln's Inn Fields but 
had been discharged in consequence for trespassing upon the 
hard and fast traditions of the theatre.^ But Macklin only 

^ The Dramatic Censor; or Critical Companion. 2 Vols. London, 1770, 
Essay on Richard the Third, As Altered from Shakespeare by Cibber, 
page II. 

° It is noted by Fitzgerald as a favorite action at this time with the 
ladies and gentlemen of the stage, when interrupted in reading, to throw 
their books into a brook or side scene. 

" It was Macklin who rescued Shylock from low comedy, and who, at the 
very end of his career, had the courage to appear in Macbeth in Highland 



105 

suggested what Garrick made of practical effect, and it is, 
therefore, from him that we date the revival and maintenance 
of natural methods. 

Garrick played Richard seventeen times during the season 
at Goodman's Fields, and then after a summer in Dublin, en- 
gaged for the next year at Drury Lane, where he continued 
for almost the whole of his career. During the next season, 
at Drury Lane, Richard was performed fourteen times, six 
of these being by Garrick.'^ In 1744-5, Garrick played Rich- 
ard four times; in 1745-6 no bills with Garrick as Richard 
appear, but the part was taken by new actors. In the follow- 
ing seasons he appeared three or four times in the character, 
until in 1 761-2 there seems to have been a revival of interest 
in the play, when Garrick and Mossop shared the part. This 
continued for several seasons, but with the appearance of new 
names such as Sheridan, Smith, and Holland, Garrick's ap- 
pearances in Richard became rarer, until his last on June 5, 
1776.^ 

During these twenty-five years the play had had a brilliant 
history. It was constantly used, was a favorite for benefits, 
was chosen for the Theatrical Fund performances, and 
was early found in the provincial theatres. While Gar- 
rick was by all means the leading Richard, the part was 
constantly presented at the other theatres by Quin, Ryan, and 
Sheridan. An interesting contest took place in 1746 at Covent 
Garden, when an agreement was made by which Garrick and 

dress, instead of in the scarlet coat, silver-laced waistcoat, and wig and 
knee-breeches, in favor with Garrick, and in which he appears in Zoffany's 
portrait. Barry, a contemparary of Garrick, played Othello " in a full suit 
of gold-laced scarlet, a small cocked hat, knee-breeches, and silk stockings." 
His wife was " clad in the fascinating costume of Italy." Thos. Goodwin, 
Sketches and Impressions, Musical, Theatrical and Social, 1^99-1885. New 
York, 1887, This is given on the authority of one Fred. Reynods, who 
had seen Garrick. 

' This season is memorable for Peg Woffington's first appearance as Anne. 

' In regard to his retirement, Genest says : " He was for some time in- 
clined to end his course with the part he at first set out with ; but upon 
consideration he judged, that, after the fatigue of so laborious a character 
as Richard, it would be out of his power to utter a farewell word to the 
audience ... he therefore chose Don Felix (Murphy) ... as 
being less fatiguing." Op. cit,, Vol. V, pages 497-8. 



106 

Quin appeared on alternate nights in " Richard the Third." 
It was a definite pitting of the old against the new, the tra- 
ditional against the natural and spontaneous, and while the 
Richard of Garrick drew a crowded house, that of Quin gained 
little attention.^ Quin before this had carried on a stirring 
rivalry at Covent Garden, and later, on October 29, 1774, 
" Richard the Third " was played at both houses on the same 
evening. At the time of Garrick's retirement from the stage 
in 1776, the Richards of the day were E. T. Smith and Hen- 
derson at Drury Lane, and Thomas Sheridan at Covent Gar- 
den. Smith was " most mediocre," rosy- faced, drowsy, level- 
toned, a Richard beyond comprehension. Henderson sup- 
ported to the best of his considerable second-rate abilities the 
Garrick tradition from 1779 to 1785, when he was the leading 
attraction at Covent Garden, and was considered Garrick's 
successor. Other actors of Garrick's time who gained some 
reputation in the character of Richard the Third were Spran- 
ger Barry,^° renowned for his wonderfully musical voice, and 
Mossop, who played frequently during Garrick's connection 
with Drury Lane, but for the most part in the years after 
Garrick's first achievements in this part.^^ There were also a 
number of incidental actors as Goodfellow, Reddish, Murphy, 
and Macklin, who at the advanced age of eighty-five undertook 
the part of Richard and played it four times, a remarkable 
achievement, even though the performance was called " hard 
and harsh." 

At Garrick's first performance, the part of Queen Elizabeth 
was taken by Mrs. Steel and Lady Anne by Mrs. Giffard, but 
at Drury Lane Mrs. Pritchard usually took the part of the 

^ Davies, quoted by Genest, op. cit., Vol. IV, page 209. 

^^ In the wooing of Anne, Barry was considered superior to Garrick, the 
tone of his voice being described as " happily insinuating," and his manner 
as " perfectly engaging." 

" The Dramatic Censor says of some of these competitors : " Mr. Mossop 
displays great powers, Mr. Sheridan much judgment, and Mr. Smith con- 
siderable spirit ; but had the first more delicacy, with less labour ; the 
second more harmony, and less stiffness ; the third more variation, with 
less levity, their merit would rise several degrees beyond what it is." Pages 
12-13. 



107 

Queen, and Peg Woffington appears frequently as Lady Anne 
from 1743 until about 1750, when she went to Covent Garden, 
and the part was taken by Mrs. Davies. In 1776, Mrs. Siddons 
played Lady Anne twice to Garrick's Richard.^^ At Covent 
Garden, with Quin and Ryan, Mrs. Horton appears usually 
as Queen Elizabeth, though Mrs. Pritchard was there for a 
time, and Mrs. Gibber played both this part and Lady Anne 
occasionally. 

The after-play was used throughout this period,^^ one of 
the most interesting being that given at Govent Garden on 
February 13, 1738, " The Winter's Tale " under the title of 
" The Sheep-shearing." In 1761, first at Govent Garden, the 
introduction of the Coronation spectacle became popular with 
all plays that would admit of it, and this was used frequently 
with " Richard the Third " in 1762-3, 1766 and 1769.^* The 
play was supplied with an epilogue, at least once, on June 2, 
1772, when it was performed for the Theatrical Fund.^^ 

Between the age of Betterton and that of Garrick, threatrical 
conditions had made no great advance, and not until the later 
years of Garrick's management do we find the beginning of the 
revolution in staging which foreshadowed the work of Gharles 
Kean and Irving. In Garrick's day the house was still com- 
paratively dark even after his innovation of illuminating the 
stage by lights behind the proscenium, invisible to the audience, 
for he was hampered by the absence of a light like gas. The 
scene-shifting was noisy and clumsy, and the scenery had little 

" The story is often repeated which gives Mrs. Siddons' opinion of 
Garrick's Richard. Sheridan remarked that it was not terrible enough, 
when Mrs. Siddons replied : " What could be more terrible ? In one scene 
I was so much overcome by the fearful expression on his face that I forgot 
my instructions. I was recalled to myself by a look of reproof, which I 
never remember without a tremor." 

" It is to be noted as a tribute to Garrick's unrivaled drawing power in 
Richard, that the after-farce seems not to have been used when he played, 
as it was frequently when Mossop, Smith, or others took the part. 

" Genest speaking of Covent Garden, says : " The Coronation at this 
theatre was tacked only to appropriate plays, not to plays with which it 
had no connection, as at Drury Lane." Op. cit., Vol. IV, page 654. 

^^ Genest, op. cit.. Vol. V, page 327. 



108 

effect in the dim background of the stage. It was used too, 
with Httle intelligence, the setting being often a hodge-podge 
of odds and ends,^^ without regard to their fitness for the 
setting desired. In 1772, however, Garrick engaged the young 
Alsatian artist, De Loutherbourg, as scene painter, and thus 
prepared the way for the improvements of the latter part of the 
century. Although De Loutherbourg's work for Drury Lane 
began at the very end of Garrick's management, in these last 
years " Richard the Third " was frequently given and in the 
Irving collection of designs made by this artist, there are three 
for scenes on Bosworth Field. These, with the introduction 
of " raking " scenes, practicable bridges, gauze curtains for at- 
mospheric effects, and ingenious devices for simulating sounds, 
show how great must have been the change in the character 
of the last scenes.^'^ 

Throughout the period great regard for costume, so far as 
richness of effect was concerned, persisted, but little was done 
for its propriety, as the portraits of the time show. In Ho- 
garth's portrait of Garrick as Richard the Third the dress is 
Elizabethan,^^ with trunks and hose, ruffs at neck and wrists, 
and the short sleeveless fur-edged coat, showing the puffed 
sleeves of the tunic. This costume is probably the traditional 
one from the Shakespearian stage, and leads one to believe that 
Richard, even in Gibber's personation, never appeared in con- 
temporary dress, whatever the minor characters may have 
done. Davies remarks that " Richard the Third " and " Henry 
the Eighth " were distinguished by the two principal characters 
being dressed with propriety,^" though different from all the 

^® " The memory of no very aged persons may present, if closely urged, 
some not very brilliant impression of the miserable pairs of flats that 
used to clap together on even the stage trodden by Mr. Garrick ; archi- 
tecture without selection or propriety ; a hall, a castle, or a chamber ; or a 
cut wood of which all the verdure seemed to have been washed away." 
James Boaden, Memoirs of the Life of John Philip Kemble, page xiv. 

" On the work of De Loutherbourg, see The Pioneers of Modern Eng- 
lish Stage-Mounting : Phillipe Jacques de Loutherbourg, R. A., by W. J. 
Lawrence. Magazine of Art, Vol. 18 (1895). 

" See Racinet, Le Costume Historique, for proof of this. 

" Quoted by R. W. Lowe in Life of Betterton, page 55. 



109 

rest; and this seems to have been true throughout Garrick's 
management.^" Whether Davies by " propriety " meant that 
he thought that Richard was in the dress of the fifteenth 
century is not clear, but his archeological knowledge as to the 
proper costume of that time, was probably not in advance of 
that of his contemporaries.^^ The Dramatic Censor comments 
upon the subject: 

" However historical relation admits doubts of that monarch's personal 
deformity, it was certainly well judged to make his external appearance on 
the stage, emblematic of his mind ; and for the sake of singularity dressing 
him only in the habit of the times may be defensible ; but what excuse 
can be made for shewing him, at his first entrance, in as elegant a dress as 
when king, I am at a loss to suggest; does he not, after his scene with 
Lady Anne, profess a design of ornamenting his person more advan- 
tageously? Macbeth, when king, is always distinguished by a second dress, 
why not Richard? a still greater breach of propriety appears in putting 
mourning upon none of the persons of the court but the ladies and children ; 
though Richard pays all other external respect to the circumstances of his 
brother's death."^ 

After Garrick, the next great actor to essay this character 
was John Philip Kemble in 1783, and with him an entirely 
different conception of the part was , inaugurated. Kemble's 
biographer, in speaking of Henderson who conscientiously 
carried on the tradition of Garrick, and comparing him with 
Kemble, says : 

" The high-erected deportment, the expressive action, the solemn cadence, 
the stately pauses of that original tragedian, Kemble, with the magic of 
countenance and form to bear up his style, have by degrees won us from 
the school of ease and freedom and variety and warmth, and all the ming- 
ling proprieties of humour and pathos, as Shakspeare founded it, and as 
it was taught by the professor whom I have just named. The styles 
were certainly incompatible with each other. . . . The declamation 
of Mr. Kemble seemed to be fetched from the schools of philosophy — it 
was always pure and correct." 

^^ See Boaden, op. cit., page 184. 

^^ In Fitzgerald's History of the Stage the same mistake is made in regard 
to Richard's dress at this time : " King Richard's troops appear in the uni- 
forms of the soldiers in St. James's Park with short jackets and cocked-up 
hats. King Richard, indeed, wears the dress of his time, but not so 
Richmond ; while the Bishop is stiffened into reformers' lawn sleeves, with 
trencher-cap and tassel" (Page 234-5). 

^Dramatic Censor, page 10. 



110 

To show the principle on which the " most scientific " actor 
worked, he quotes from Sir Joshua Reynolds : 

" I must observe that even the expression of violent passion is not 
always the most excellent in proportion as it is the most natural ; so great 
terror and such disagreeable sensations may be communicated to the audi- 
ence that the balance may be destroyed by which pleasure is preserved, 
and holds its predominancy in the mind ; violent distortion of action, harsh 
screamings of the voice, however great the occasion, or however natural on 
such occasion, are, therefore, not admissible in the theatric art. Many 
of these allowed deviations from nature arise from the necessity which 
there is that everything should be raised and enlarged beyond its natural 
state ; that the full effect may come home to the spectator, which other- 
wise would be lost in the comparatively extensive space of the theatre. 
Hence the deliberate and stately step, the studied grace of action, which 
seems to enlarge the dimensions of the actor, and alone to fill the stage."^ 

This is, therefore, the great classical period in the history 
of the play of " Richard the Third," when the canons of 
Reynolds in art, and the conceptions of the classicists in litera- 
ture found histrionic expression in the school of Kemble.-* 

Kemble played Richard from 1783 to 1802 at Drury Lane, 
and at Covent Garden from that time to his retirement in 
1817. At the latter theatre he for a time, i. e., until 1810, 
took the part of Richmond to the Richard of George Fred- 
erick Cooke. Cooke, indeed, was Kemble's great rival in this 
play, and his appearance at Covent Garden, where he played 
Richard over twenty times during his first season, caused a 
great sensation. Dunlap, the biographer of Cooke, says of 
his acting in this part : " His superiority over all others, in the 
confident dissimulation, the crafty hypocrisy, and the bitter 
sarcasm of the character, is acknowledged by every writer who 
has criticised his acting. . . . His triumph in this character 
was so complete, that after a struggle, Mr. Kemble resigned it 
altogether to him."^^ 

^ Boaden, op. cit., page 102. 

^*An analysis of Kemble's acting by Leigh Hunt is given in his Critical 
Essays on the Performers of the London Theatres. 

^'Memoirs of the Life of George Frederick Cooke, Esquire, Late of the 
Theatre Royal, Covent Garden. Vol. I, pages 147-8. Cooke used Roach's 
1802 edition of Richard the Third, but inserted the four opening lines from 
Shakespeare in Richard's first speech and a few lines in his last speech 
in Act IV. 



Ill 

But Cooke left for America in 1810, and Kemble was with- 
out a rival until Kean's appearance four years later. During 
all these years Mrs. Siddons appeared frequently as Elizabeth 
with her brother, and gained here, as everywhere, praise for 
her interpretation of the part. Mrs. Powell and Mrs. Ward, 
two of the best known actresses of the day, also became 
identified with the parts of the Queen and Lady Anne. 

While contemporary critics agree that Richard was not one 
of Kemble's great parts, yet in his staging and revision of the 
play he influenced its history considerably. Describing the 
conditions when Kemble began his work in this line, Boaden 
says : " The old scenery exhibited architecture of no period, 
and excited little attention . . . nothing could be less accurate, 
or more dirty, than the usual pairs of low flats that were hur- 
ried together, to denote the locality of the finest dialogue that 
human genius ever composed."^® When new Drury Lane was 
built in 1794, Kemble engaged William Capon, a man well 
known for his antiquarian labors, as " scenic director " for 
the new theatre. This was the beginning of a brilliant era of 
new methods of staging the older drama. Kemble, like Mack- 
lin before him, had made an abortive attempt at " correct " 
staging and costume in his early days, and again in the revival 
of "Henry the Eighth" at Drury Lane in 1788; but with 
Capon, definite antiquarian research became a part of the 
theatrical business. ^'^ 

The new Drury Lane had such a large stage that none of 
the old scenery and few of the properties could be used, and 
this gave an unusual opportunity to Capon to bring into use 
harmonious and correct settings for the plays. It now became 
the fashion to lavish vast sums on the revivals of old plays ; 
when the theatre opened with " Macbeth," in 1794, " so pro- 
fuse was the wealth of adjuncts in the banquet scene that the 
novelty was spoken of as ' a thing to go to see of itself.' " To 
meet the expense of this splendor the after-piece was omitted, 

-" op. cit,, page 158. 

^ The work of Capon is described in an article by W. J. Lawrence 
in the Magazine of Art, 1895, on Pioneers of Modern English Stage 
Mounting: William Capon. 



112 

and all the money and labor were put upon the main feature 
of the evening. A Hst of Capon's most successful scenes 
include some of interest here:-^ 

Six wings, representing ancient English streets ; combina- 
tions of genuine remains, selected on account of their pictur- 
esque beauty. 

The tower of London, restored to its earlier state, for the 
play of " King Richard the Third." 

Six chamber wings, of the same order {i. e., pointed archi- 
tecture), for general use in our old English plays — very elab- 
orately studied from actual remains.^'' 

When Kemble became manager of new Covent Garden in 
1809, he there carried on these archeological reforms, and the 
house became noted for truthful and uniform Shakespearian 
revivals.^*' Added to his efforts for greater splendor of pro- 
duction, Kemble exerted his influence beneficially in endeavor- 
ing to curb the desire of performers to play always great 
characters, and to get them to concur cheerfully in such a cast 
as should exhibit the full strength of the company, and do the 
utmost justice to the ideas of the poet. Kemble illustrated his 
policy by appearing with Cooke in the season of 1803 at Covent 
Garden as Richmond to Cooke's Richard.^^ 

^^ Boaden, op. cit., pages 316-7. 

^'Another scene, interesting because of its use in a related play of the 
time is " The Council chamber of Crosby House, for Jane Shore — a correct 
restoration of pristine state of the apartment so far as could be deduced 
from documentary evidence." Given by W. J. Lawrence, in the article 
on William Capon, cited above, page 290. 

^"The same kind of work had been going on at Covent Garden before 
Kemble's management, under Inigo Richards. Old Covent Garden had 
burned down on September 20, 1808. A description of the new building 
is given Boaden, op. cit., pages 533-4. 

^' During this period the play appeared with such added attractions as 
Blue Beard, a splendid show with real elephants, as an after piece. In 
1805 and again in 1806, Master Betty, aged fourteen years, "the tenth 
wonder of the world," an " infant Roscius," appeared as Richard the 
Third. He had played in London since 1804, appeared with the best actors 
of the day such as Cooke, Kemble, and Mrs. Siddons, and drew enormous 
crowds. In 181 3, Betty, then a man, again essayed the part of Richard, but 
with poor success, and was not offered another engagement. At Bath, how- 



113 

We find therefore, by the beginning of the nineteenth cen- 
tury, that " Richard the Third " was thoroughly changed 
in setting, but that the play-book of the eighteenth century 
still held the stage. In 1810, Kemble published a revision of 
Gibber's alteration, but the principal change consisted in short- 
ening it,^^ resulting in the omission of one hundred and 
twenty-six and a half lines, and the addition from Shakespeare 
of four and a half lines with one and a half of his own. 
From Shakespeare he restored the lines at the beginning of 
Richard's first speech, curiously omitted by Gibber since they 
connect this play so definitely with the series concerned with 
Henry the Sixth: 

Now is the winter of our discontent ; 
Made glorious summer by this sun of York ; 
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house 
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried. 

The scenes in which the greatest excisions were made are 
Act III, Scene 2, where sixteen lines are taken from Lady 
Anne's speech on the unhappiness of her marriage, and twenty- 
six lines from the scene in Baynard Gastle ; and Act IV, Scene 
4, where Richard's solicitation of Elizabeth is shortened by 
seventeen lines. The character of Sir William Brandon he 
substituted for Tressel. There are more frequent changes and 
greater variety of scene. Thus, in the first act. Scene i is in 
the Tower Garden, but for Richard's entrance a change is 
made to the court-yard of the Tower ; in Act III, a new setting 
is given to the interview with Lady Anne ; in Act IV, Richard 

ever, he drew good audiences for a number of years. Byron refers to this 
vogue contemptuously in English Bards and Scotch Reviewers thus, 
Though now, thank Heaven ! the Rosciomania's o'er, 
And full-grown actors are endured once more. 
In 1 812, Comus was given with Richard the Third as an after piece. 
It had figured in the Jubilee Pageant in 1785 and later, with Kemble as 
Richard, and imitators, such as Carey, Charles Matthews, and Yates had 
found it a favorite subject for impersonations of leading actors. 

^^ " J. P. Kemble revised Cibber's alteration of Richard the 3d — but 
' damned custom had braz'd him so, that he was proof and bulwark against 
sense ' — he digested the cold mutton, and even the spiders crawling upon 
hopes did not startle him." Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 233. 

9 



114 

speaks his soliloquy during the murder of the princes, in a 
" gallery in the Tower," and the mourning women meet him 
at " the city-gates." There is also indication of more elabora- 
tion of details, as the tolling of the bell during the funeral pro- 
cession, while here Lady Anne and the procession enter, a 
change from the " dicovered " scene of Gibber, but which gave 
scope to Kemble's love of display, and an opportunity for the 
exercise of that archeological exactness upon which he prided 
himself. Martial music and flourishes are more frequently 
called for, and Richmond's victory is emphasized by the re- 
moval of Richard's body to the sound of trumpets, and the 
tableau at the end with all kneeling and shouting. 

Long live Henry the Seventh, King of England ! 

But the changes, it is seen, are so slight that no essential differ- 
ence is made in plan or conception, even in details. These 
however, met with favor, and appear with little variation in 
the best known editions from prompt-books of the time, Inch- 
bald's "British Theatre" ( 1806-9), ^^ and Oxberry's "New 
English Drama" (1818).='^ 

It was this modified version of Gibber's " Richard the 
Third " that was used by the next and most renowned Richard 
of the nineteenth century, Edmund Kean. He appeared in 
London in 1814, three years before Kemble's retirement, and 
after his presentation of Richard the Third at his second ap- 
pearance, the city rang with his fame, and Drury Lane, which 
had been seriously declining, became once more theatrically 
important. Byron, who was in London at this time, after see- 
ing Kean, wrote in His diary, " Just returned from seeing 
Kean in Richard. By Jove ! he is a soul ! Life, nature, truth, 
without exaggeration or diminution. Richard is a man, and 

^^ Volume 1 7. Mrs. Inchbald, whose text was evidently taken from the 
prompt-book before publication, records some changes in setting. Thus 
Richard soliloquizes in the presence-chamber during the murder of the 
princes, and Richmond's tent and the single encounters between Richard 
and Richmond are placed in a wood. Neither in this edition nor in 
Oxberry's is Tressel dropped from the characters in favor of Sir William 
Brandon. 

^* Volume 3. 



115 



Kean ,s Richard."^^ Coleridge said it was like "reading 
Sliakespeare by flashes of lightning." The newspapers took 
pleasure m noting the resemblance of his name to that of Le 
Kam the great actor of France who had displaced a conven- 
tional studied method of acting for one natural and lively 
Like Garnck, the greatest Richard among his predecessors 
Kean was short and eminently fitted in face and form for the 
part; he was called '' the great little man," had a face of won- 
derful expressiveness with piercing eyes, remarkable energy in 
his movements and great versatility. He recalled the best days 
of Garnck, with more of recklessness, less of order in his per- 
formance. Epithets such as Dumas' " Desordre et Genie "36 
were freely applied to this surprising person. J. P Kemble 
said when asked his opinion, "Our styles of acting are so 
totally different, that you must not expect me to like Mr 
Kean; but one thing I must say in his favor-he is at all 
times terribly m earnest."" 

Kean's acting, after the classicism of Kemble and the 
butcher-hke representation" of which Lamb complained in 
Cooke s performance of Richard,- seemed to realize the richer 
more complex and subtle conception of Richard's characte; 
held by such critics as Hazlitt, Coleridge and Lamb. I can 
do no better than to quote in full the most elaborate criticism 
of the play that came from these later critics. 

iZLT'of ZT'P r^""^ ""' '^'^ ''' ^^'- ^«--^)- %-n says 

pm together of those whom I remember to have seen in England" An 

acting. In The Champion Decemhpr tSt-, u^ ■ , • „ . 

r.f . ■ ■ '^y'-'Jn, i^ecemoer, 1817, he praises his "intense oower 

amngs of verse." Keats' fF.rt., ed. H. B. Forman, Vol. Ill, paje 5. 

Sa Jra^lTs^f ""' "" "''"'' " '""■ "" -°--^ " *-' f o„e 

^^ Boaden, op. cit., page 569. 

sli^'^ltlZlfc' t ''"^'r^'^^^' London, .855. Kean said of him- 
self I have got Cooke's style in acting, but the public will never know 



116 

" It is possible to form a higher conception of the character of Richard 
than that given by Mr Kean (not from seeing any other actor, but from 
reading Shakespeare) ; but we cannot imagine any character represented 
with greater distinctness and precision, more perfectly articulated in 
every part. . . . He is more refined than Cooke ; more bold, varied, and 
original than Kemble in the same character. In some parts he is deficient 
in dignity, and, particularly in the scenes of state business, he has by no 
means an air of artificial authority. There is at times a sort of tip-toe 
elevation, an enthusiastic rapture in his expectations of attaining the crown, 
and at others a gloating expression of sullen delight, as if he already 
clenched the bauble, and held it in his grasp. This was the precise ex- 
pression which Mr. Kean gave with so much effect to the part where he 
says, that he already feels ' The golden rigol bind his brows.' In one 
who dares so much, there is indeed little to blame. The courtship scene 
with Lady Anne is an admirable exhibition of smooth and smiling villainy. 
The progress of wily adulation, of encroaching humility, is finely marked 
by his action, voice and eye. He seems, like the first Tempter, to ap- 
proach his prey, secure of the event, and as if success had smoothed his 
way before him. Mr. Cooke's manner of representing this scene was 
more vehement, hurried, and full of anxious uncertainty. This though 
more natural in general, was less in character in this particular instance. 
Richard should woo not as a lover but as an actor — to show his mental 
superiority, and power of making others the playthings of his will. Mr. 
Kean's attitude in leaning against the side of the stage before he comes 
forward to address Lady Anne, is one of the most graceful and striking 
ever witnessed on the stage. It would have done for Titian to paint. 
The frequent and rapid transition of his voice from the expression of the 
fiercest passion to the most familiar tones of conversation was that which 
gave a peculiar grace of novelty to his acting on his first appearance. 
This has been since imitated and caricatured by others, and he himself 
uses the artifice more sparingly than he did. His bye-play is excellent. 
His manner of bidding his friends * Good-night,' after pausing with the 
point of his sword, drawn slowly backward and forward on the ground, 
as if considering the plan of the battle next day, is a particularly happy 
and natural thought. He gives to the two last acts (sic?) of the play the 
greatest animation and effect. He fills every part of the stage ; and makes 
up for the deficiency of his person by what has been sometimes objected to 
as an excess of action. The concluding scene, in which he is killed by Rich- 
mond is the most brilliant of the whole. He fights at last like one drunk 
with wounds ; and the attitude in which he stands with his hands stretched 
out, after his sword is wrested from him, has a praeternatural grandeur, as 
if his will could not be disarmed, and the very phantoms of his despair had 
withering power to kill." ^' 

^'W. Hazlit, The Characters of Shakespeare's Plays, pages 149-S0 
(Phila., 1854). 

G. H. Lewes, who was greatly impressed by Kean's acting, says of one 



117 

J. F. Molloy, Kean's biographer, in speaking of these first 
performances, mentions some of the scenes in which he 
achieved his greatest triumphs ; his power of conveying " the 
idea of rage stifled beneath a calm exterior " when taunted 
by the little Duke of York; his exit when retiring to his tent, 
said by the critic of the " Morning Post " to be " one of the 
finest pieces of acting we have ever beheld, or perhaps that the 
stage has ever known " ; and his death agony, which, the 
" Examiner " is quoted as remarking, " was a piece of noble 
poetry, expressed by action instead of language."*** He tells 
how, " as the curtain fell the audience rose as one man, cheered 

scene, " He had no gaiety ; he could not laugh ; he had no playfulness that 
was not as the playfulness of a panther showing her claws every moment. 
Of this kind was the gaiety of his Richard III. Who can ever forget 
the exquisite grace with which he leaned against the side-scene while Anne 
was railing at him, and the chuckling mirth of his ' Poor fool ! what pains 
she takes to damn herself ! ' It was thoroughly feline — terrible yet 
beautiful." On Actors and the Art of Acting, London, 1875, page lo. 

Genest, who did not like Kean and seldom says anything in his praise, 
notices the death scene particularly. In recording Kean's performance at 
Bath, July 14, 1815, he remarks, "Richard was Kean's best part — but he 
overdid his death — he came up close to Richmond, after he had lost his 
sword, as if he would have attacked him with his fists — Richmond, to 
please Kean, was obliged to stand like a fool, with a drawn sword in his 
hand, and without daring to use it." On June 15, 181 9, he notes, " Kean 
on this night (and probably before) left off his absurd habit of collaring 
Richmond after he himself was disarmed." Op. cit., Vol. VIII, pages 495 
and 692. 

*" Does this mean that Kean omitted the death speech which Gibber gives 
Richard ? 

As Ryan had anticipated Garrick's manner, so in the case of Kean, 
George Frederick Cooke suggested his general method. Vandenhoff, in his 
Leaves from an Actor's Note Book, says that those who had seen both in 
Richard the Third, " do not hesitate to award to Cooke the palm for sus- 
tained power, and intense, enduring energy of passion ; Kean excelled him 
probably in light and shade of expression." Kean's admiration for Cooke 
was well known, and was attested by his raising a monument to his 
memory in St. Paul's churchyard in New York, when he visited America 
in 1821. The well-known portrait of Kean as Richard the Third may be 
found in Tallis' Dramatic Magazine. 



118 

lustily, applauded wildly, declaring by word and action this new 
actor was great indeed."*^ 

Three years after Kean's brilliant debut, Kemble retired 
from the stage. Cooke had died in 1812 in Boston, and until 
the appearance of William Charles Macready in 1819, Kean 
held the part without a possible equal, and with Junius Brutus 
Booth as his only notable rival. Booth resembled Kean strik- 
ingly in person and he imitated him closely in his Richard the 
Third, and was for a time enthusiastically received.*^ But 
his fame in England was short-lived, for he went to the United 
States in 1821, and remained there. There were many other 
rivals of all classes, from the genteel and declamatory Charles 
Young, of the Kemble school, to the ridiculous Plunkett of 
Dublin, but Kean's preeminence in Richard the Third was un- 
disturbed.^^ Kean's " leading ladies " of most note were Mrs. 
Glover for Queen Elizabeth, whom he used to frighten with 
his tragic earnestness, and Miss Faucit, the greatest English 
actress of the time, who played the part of Lady Anne in 1829. 

" The Life and Adventures of Edmund Kean Tragedian. London, 1888, 
page ISO. 

*" An account of his successful appearance is given by Macready in his 
Reminiscences, page loi. "A report had reached the managers of Covent 
Garden of a Mr. Booth (who in figure, voice, and manner so closely re- 
sembled Kean that he might be taken for his twin brother) acting Richard 
the Third at Brighton and Worthing with great success. An appearance 
at Covent Garden was offered to him with the promise of an engagement if 
successful. Accordingly on the 12th of February (181 7) he appeared in 
Gloster, and certainly on his first entrance on the stage, with a similar 
coiffure and dress, he might have been thought Kean himself. With con- 
siderable physical power, a strong voice, a good deal of bustle, some stage 
experience, and sufficient intelligence to follow out the traditional effects 
of the part, he succeeded in winning the applause and favor of his audience, 
and repeated the performance on the following night." Then follows the 
account of Kean's dramatic method of proving his superiority to his rival, 
with which we are here not particularly concerned. 

*^ A club called The Wolves, was formed to support him, and while they 
probably did not do all that was attributed to them, Genest thinks that it 
is clear " that there was some combination among Kean's friends to prevent 
any new performer from succeeding in Richard." This seems possible 
from the treatment given to a new actor, Meggett, when he undertook the 
part at Haymarket, in 181 5. See Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 486. 



119 

Aside from the " business," for which Kean's performance 
was remarkable,** he does not appear to have introduced many- 
innovations in the staging. At his first appearance in 1814, at 
Drury Lane, new scenery, archeologically and historically cor- 
rect, was painted for the occasion,*^ and therefore Kean found 
the setting better than any Richard before him. He is repre- 
sented in a prompt-book of 1827 as making a slight change in 
the ghost scene, where the figures do not rise, but a curtain 
is drawn from the back of Richard's tent and they appear in 
the midst of cloud effects. Genest gives a suggestion of an 
innovation in noting that " the Lord Mayor was very properly 
played seriously."*® That the Lord Mayor was a comic char- 
acter in Elizabethan representations seems apparent, and the 
tradition had evidently persisted until public taste acquiesced in 
this change, as it did in Macklin's elevation of the character of 
Shylock. The costume throughout this period, used both by 
Kean and Kemble before him, is given by Oxberry in his " New 
English Drama " of 1818,*'^ and shows the Elizabethan dress 

** " Every personator of Richard must fight like a madman, and fence on 
the ground, and when disarmed and wounded, thrust with savage impotence 
with his naked hand, 

' And sink outwearied, rather than o'ercome.' 
Mr. Kean has passed this manner into a law, and woe be to him who 
breaks it. No one but Mr. Kemble can be allowed to parry like a school- 
boy, and drop like a gentleman." Quoted from The Champion, February 
16, 181 7, by Asia Booth Clarke in The Elder and the Younger Booth, 
Boston 1882, page 15. 

^^ Molloy, op. cit., page 145. The building that had been opened with 
such splendor in 1794, burned down on February lo, 1809. Drury Lane 
was rebuilt and opened on October 10, 18 12, with a larger stage and finer 
appointments. On that occasion Lord Byron supplied the Address. See 
Boaden, op. cit,, page 568. 

^ Op. cit.. Vol. VIII, page 692. 

*' " Gloster. ist dress. Scarlet doublet, trunks, hose, hat, cloak and 
russet boots. 2d dress. Black ditto, ditto, trimmed with gold, crimson 
velvet robe, white hose, shoes, and plush hat. 3rd dress. Armour body, 
and hat. 

" King Henry. Black velvet trunks, hose, and cloak. 

" Richmond. Buff pantaloons, russet boots, armour body, scarlet mantle 
and black hat. 

" Queen. White satin dress, trimmed with point lace and beads, point 



120 

such as Garrick had used. Here, however, all the characters 
are so dressed. We find certain personal additions to Rich- 
ard's costume made by Kean, as the point lace collar which 
Garrick had invariably worn in this part, and which was given 
Kean by Wroughton, a fellow-actor.^^ 

Kean, in 1820 and again in 1825, visited America, where 
Richard the Third was the most prominent character in his 
repertoire. In 1828, he played the part in Paris, at the Theatre 
Frangais, where he excited curiosity but no great appreciation. 
Kean's popularity, in spite of his dissipated habits and conse- 
quent diminution of power, remained to the end. Hazlitt tells 
how prevailingly he had become the fashion : "If yoii had not 
been to see the little man twenty times in Richard, and did 
not deny his being hoarse in the last act, or admire him for 
being so, you were looked on as a lukewarm devotee, or half 
an infidel!" 

This interpretation of Richard was kept constantly before 
the public, for it continued to be a favorite part with Kean 
to the end of his life,*^ was constantly chosen by him for 
opening his season at Drury Lane, and was his last play 
there. His influence upon the history of the play is sug- 
gested in these words of G. H. Lewes : " He largely increased 
the stock of ' business,' which is the tradition of the stage. 
Hamlet, Othello, Richard, Shylock, Lear, Sir Giles Overreach, 
or Sir Edward Mortimer have (sic?) been illuminated by him 
in a way neither actors nor playgoers commonly suspect. . . . 
Edmund Kean did much for Shakespeare. The acting edition 
of our greatest dramatist may now almost be said to be based 

lace and muslin drapery. 2d dress. Black velvet trimmed with black 
crape ; black crape veil, trimmed with bugles. 

" Lady Anne. Black velvet dress, trimmed with bugles, black crape veil, 
trimmed with bugles. 

" The other characters in variously colored doublets, trunks, hose and 
cloaks." 

** Molloy, op. cit., page 202, records that after his great success in 
Richard, Kean was presented with a gold snuff-box by Lord Byron, having 
a boar hunt in mosaic on the lid, and henceforth Kean adopted a boar as 
his crest as had King Richard. 

** He died in 1833. 



121 

upon his conceptions of the leading parts. He invented much. 
His own quick, passionate sympathy saw effects where other 
actors had seen nothing."^*^ 

Charles William Macready acted Richard the Third as early 
as 1812-3 at Bristol, where his father was manager of the 
theatre, but he was entirely dissatisfied with the result, because 
"a humpbacked tall man is not in nature." Yet it was this 
part which afterwards was of importance in his attainment 
of a leading position on the London stage. It was in 1819 that 
he acted Richard first in London, at Covent Garden, where 
he scored a great success, playing it nine times, though at that 
period Kean was at the height of his reputation. In his 
" Reminiscences " he gives a full account of his reluctance at 
undertaking the part, and how he was actually driven to it by 
his manager, Mr. Harris. He tells of his despairing, but char- 
acteristically painstaking preparation for it: 

" All that history could give me I had already ferreted out, and for my 
portrait of the character, the self-reliant, wily, quick-sighted, decisive, in- 
flexible Plantagenet, I went direct to the true source of inspiration,®^ the 
great original, endeavoring to carry its spirit through the sententious and 
stagy lines of Cibber ; not searching for particular ' points ' to make, but 
rendering the hypocrisy of the man deceptive and persuasive in its earnest- 
ness, and presenting him in the execution of his will as acting with 
lightning-like rapidity." ^^ 

He goes on to describe the performance, and speaks of the 
enthusiasm of the audience particularly over his rendering of 
Buckingham's repulse, " I'm busy ; thou troublest me ! I'm not 
in the vein " ; over his fevered impatience in the scene with 
Tyrrel after the murder of the princes, and tells how at the 
death " the pit rose again with one accord, waving their hats 
with long-continued cheers." After the performance, he was 
called for to announce the play of the next day instead of the 
one appointed to do this, and the practice was thus first in- 
troduced at Covent Garden of " calling on " the principal actor. 

^^ Op. cit., pages 19 and 29. 

^^ The first expression of this that I have found. Quin thought he was 
playing Shakespeare's work until Garrick enlightened him. 

^^Reminiscences, edited by Sir Frederick Pollock, New York, 1875, page 
141. 



122 

The papers gave enthusiastic accounts of it, some even 
acknowledging him equal to the great Richard of the day, 
Kean. Leigh Hunt's comparison of the two is of interest: 

" Compared then with Mr. Kean, we should say that a division of merits, 
usual enough with the performance of such comprehensive characters as 
Shakespeare's has taken place in the Richards of these two actors. Mr. 
Kean's Richard is the more sombre and perhaps deeper part of him ; Mr. 
Macready's the livelier and more animal part — a very considerable one 
nevertheless. Mr. Kean's is the more gloomy and reflective villain, rend- 
ered so by the united effect of his deformity and subtle-mindedness ; Mr. 
Macready's is the more ardent and bold-faced one, borne up by a tempera- 
ment naturally high and sanguine, though pulled down by mortification. 
The one has more of the seriousness of conscious evil in it, the other of 
the gaiety of meditated success ... in short, Mr. Kean's Richard is 
more liTce King Richard, darkened by the shadow of his very approaching 
success, and announcing the depth of his desperation when it shall be 
disputed; Mr. Macready's Richard is more like the Duke of Gloucester, 
brother to the gay tyrant Edward IV., and partaking as much of his 
character as the contradiction of the family handsomeness in his person 
would allow." °* 

The success at Covent Garden provoked instant competition 
at Drury Lane, where Kean a few weeks later assumed the 
part with Elliston as Richmond, and with the announcement 
of " New Scenery, Dresses, and Decorations." For several 
evenings " Richard the Third " occupied both play-bills, and 
furnished subject-matter for comparative criticisms in the 
papers, and even for street-ballads and caricatures in glaring 
colors in the print-shop windows, representing the " Rival 
Richards."^* 

Leigh Hunt in the selection above quoted says, " It is to be 
recollected that Mr. Kean first gave the living stage that exam- 

^' The Examiner. Quoted in the Reminiscences, page 144. 

^Reminiscences, page 145. Later opinions of Macready's Richard are 
found in Genest, under entry of May 23d, 1823. " He was very inferior to 
Kean, till the ghosts appeared ... he was then superior, as having stronger 
physical powers ... he arose from the couch with one of his arms quite 
naked above the elbow — every person noticed this stage trick, but no person 
could tell what Macready meant by it." Vol. IV, page 223. The Times on 
March 13, 1821, after his performance in his own version, said of the part 
generally, " His Richard is a performance of great merit, and would be 
still more complete, if he always retained his self-command." Remi- 
niscences, page 162. 



123 

pie of a natural style of acting on which Mr. Macready has 
founded his new rank in the theatrical world." This suggests 
the interesting position which Macready held in regard to the 
two great schools of acting. He was " eclectic," and tried to 
combine the dignity of Kemble with the vivacity of Kean, the 
deliberateness and majesty of the one with the animal spirits 
and rush of the other. In his lines, he paid more attention to 
logical than rhythmic structure, in distinction to the accenting 
of measure strongly with the meaning secondary, as in the 
older school. 

Soon after his first success in " Richard the Third," Mac- 
ready, dissatisfied with the Gibber version, and always cherish- 
ing the hope of restoring the Shakespearian text to the stage, 
in 1 82 1 attempted to return to the original play. That the 
" restoration " was only a partial one, we find from his account 
of it in his " Reminiscences :" 

" An alteration of Gibber's ' King Richard III.' had been sent to me by 
Mr. Swift of the Crown Jewel Office, but varying so little from the work 
it professed to reform, that I was obliged to extend the restoration of 
Shakespeare's text, and it was submitted (March 12th, 1821) to the public 
ordeal.^^ The experiment was partially successful — only partially. To 
receive full justice, Shakespeare's ' Life and Death of King Richard III.' 
should be given in its perfect integrity, whereby alone scope could be 
afforded to the active play of Richard's versatility and unscrupulous 
persistency. But, at the time of which I write, our audiences were 
accustomed to the coarse jests and ad captandum speeches of Cibber, and 
would have condemned the omission of such uncharacteristic claptrap as 

' Off with his head ! so much for Buckingham ! ' 

or such bombast as 

' Hence, babbling dreams : you threaten here in vain. 
Conscience, avaunt ! Richard's himself again ! ' 

In deference to the taste of the times, these passages as well as similar 
ones were retained." ^^ 

°° The playbill announced, " Of the Tragedy hitherto acted under the 
title of King Richard the 3d, more than half is the exclusive composition 
of Cibber. The present is an attempt to restore (in place of his ingenious 
alteration) the original character and language of Shakespeare ; in which 
no more extraneous matter is retained than the trifling passages necessary 
to connect those scenes between which omissions have necessarily been 
made for the purposes of representation." 

^^Reminiscences, page 162. 



124 

It was regarded rather as a rearrangement of Gibber's text 
than as a restoration of the original, according to " The 
Times" of the next day: 

" At a period when Shakespeare is regarded almost with idolatry, any 
attempt to rescue the original text from the omissions and interpolations 
which successive ages have accumulated, must at least be viewed with 
favor; with that feeling we witnessed last night the representation of his 
' Life and Death of King Richard III.', which was announced to be, with 
a few deviations, the text of the author. . . , The performance of last 
night was merely another arrangement and certainly inferior in dramatic 
effect to that of Cibber.^^ . . . The only scene of much value was that 
of the Council and the condemnation of Hastings." ^ 

. Genest gives some account of the performance : 

" The first two acts went off with great applause, and the audience was 
evidently delighted at the idea of the original play being revived — in the 
3d act the Bishop of Ely made his exit in so ludicrous a manner, that it 
threw a damp on the rest of the play — Egerton was much applauded in 
Clarence's dream — Mrs. Bunn (Margaret) made the greatest impression — 
such is the account of a gentleman who was present on this evening." °' 

This version was acted for a second time on March nine- 
teenth, and then laid aside.®" At Macready's next appearance 
in Richard the Third, which did not take place until 1831, at 
Drury Lane, when he played the part three times, the text was 
the Gibber form. Again he appeared in it five times in 1836-7, 
but during the period of his management of Drury Lane and 
his Shakespearian revivals there, from 1 841-3, " Richard the 
Third" was not attempted.®^ Neither does it seem to have 

" Although an American commentator says, " The bloated reputation of 
Cibber's interpolations he li. e., Macready] decried, and felt anguish at the 
innovations of even Dryden and Massinger." Francis, Old New York, 
page 24s. 

^Reminiscences, page 162 note. 

^* Op. cit.. Volume IX. Buckingham was played by the " imitator " Yates, 
and Queen Elizabeth by Mrs. Faucit. 

"" Genest gives as his reasons for its cold reception that " few like to 
acknowledge that they have been applauding wretched stuff," and that it 
was further due to the lack of foresight on the part of the management in 
not preceding the performance by suitable observations in the newspapers, 
and thus preparing the audience for the change. 

®^ The play seems, however, to have been in his mind from time to time, 
as, in 1838, we find in the Reminiscences the following note, " Looked 
through the plays of Shakespeare to discover if any others could be 



125 

been in his repertoire in either of his visits to America in 1826 
and in 1843, although at that time it seems to have been a 
favorite play with English " stars " for opening an American 
season. Indeed, while Richard the Third had been an im- 
portant role in starting Macready on his successful theatrical 
career in London, he seems never to have been suited in 
figure or in disposition to this part, and it was never a favorite 
or a frequent role with him.®^ 

Macready, as we have seen, did not attempt " Richard the 
Third ". in the Shakespearian revivals under his management, 
but this play was among the first given by Samuel Phelps at 
Sadler's Wells Theatre, after the patent privileges were abol- 
ished.®^ Its production took place February 20, 1845.®* The 

available for revival. Decided that ' King Richard III.,' and afterwards, 
perhaps, ' King Henry V.' were the only ones. Looked at Schlegel's re- 
marks on Richard." On December 23d of the same year he wrote : 
" Looked through the unused plays of Shakespeare for cementing lines 
for ' Richard III.' " He says in the account of his first attempt at a 
restoration of the original text : " At a later period, if the management of 
Covent Garden in 1837-9 had been continued, the play, with many others, 
would have been presented in its original purity." (Page 162.) 

^ One of the last appearances of Macready as Richard the Third is con- 
nected with a serio-comic incident which is highly characteristic of the 
sensitive and irritable actor, and at the same time reveals the degenerate 
state of Drury Lane fortunes. Bunn, the manager, planned a combined 
attraction in which the first three acts of Richard the Third were to be 
given with The Jewess and the first act of Chevy Chase. The rage and 
disgust of Macready, who was forced to appear as Richard, resulted in an 
attack by him upon Bunn, which caused him afterwards agonies of self- 
reproach and humiliation. 

*^ The patent privileges, which 'restricted the legitimate drama to the 
three patent theatres during the main season, was abolished in 1843. The 
minor theatres at once turned to Shakespearian plays, but only at Sadler's 
Wells were these received with sufficient favor to warrant an extended 
us of them. The history of Sadler's Wells under the management of 
Samuel Phelps is one of the most interesting episodes of stage annals. 
At this theatre, at one time one of the most humble, he revived nearly all 
of Shakespeare's plays, and here fostered the best in the drama for nearly 
twenty years, at a time when the older houses were given over to spectacles 
and animal shows. 

** It ran for twenty-four nights, according to The Life and the Life-Work 
of Samuel Phelps, by his nephew, W. May Phelps, and John Forbes- 
Robertson, London, 1886, page 69. Lounsbury, op. cit., page 320, note, 
found it advertised for only twenty-one nights. 



126 

reports of the day speak of the remarkable care and attention 
with which it was staged, and note as especially beautiful the 
views of Cheapside and of the Tower, and the approach of the 
Mayor by water. The tent scenes were given as in Shake- 
speare, the two tents being set up before the audience, and the 
ghosts advanced between them " by some ingenious process, 
but so far only as to be dimly visible to the audience." A more 
important element of the performance was that the text used 
was Shakespeare's. This was modified by " such alterations 
only as were necessary either to reduce the play within acting 
length, or obviate some otherwise insurmountable difficulty 
. . . with occasionally the introduction of a few lines (Shake- 
speare's) to conclude an act or make a graceful exit."®^ 

The play, although revived with such care and attention to 
details, was not repeated until the close of Phelps' manage- 
ment, in 1862, on November 23. On this occasion, strangely 
enough. Gibber's version was used, the reason avouched being 
that the actress available for Queen Margaret, Miss Atkinson, 
was unequal to the part.^^ This performance was repeated 
on January 4, and again on the i8th. Phelps, as Richard, 
gave an acceptable and conscientious presentation, but one in 
no way great; but he is of importance in the history of the 
play because of the thoughtful and artistic staging which he 
gave it, and because his was the first thorough and successful 
restoration of the original form. 

During 185 1-9, Phelps' work at Sadler's Wells was rivalled 
by that of Charles Kean at the Princess Theatre, but the 
productions here were on a much more splendid scale, and 
mark the culmination of the methods inaugurated by John 

®° Phelps and Forbes-Robertson, op. cit., page 75. The play-bill read : 
" In order to meet the spirit of the present age, so distinguished for 
illustrating and honouring the works of Shakespeare, and with at least 
an honest desire of testing his truthful excellence over all attempted 
improvements, this restoration is essayed, in lieu of the alteration, inter- 
polation, and compilement of Colley Gibber, which has so long held 
possession of the stage." 

*" Phelps and Forbes-Robertson, op. cit., page 202. The part had been 
played by Mrs. Warner, who was at her best in severe and majestic charac- 
ters, such as Queen Margaret. 



127 

Kemble. " Richard the Third " had its place in these gorge- 
ous displays on February 20, 1850. It was staged with the 
greatest elaboration of the details of scenery and costume, as 
were all of Kean's revivals, a practice which won for him the 
sneering comment of a newspaper critic of the time: "The 
painter, the tailor, and the upholsterer are Mr. Kean's inter- 
preters of Shakespeare." The play-bill shows a cast of one 
hundred and twenty-one ; the funeral procession was large and 
impressive, including monks with torches, priests with a golden 
cross, banner-men bearing the banners of the arms of Eng- 
land, numbering in all fifty-nine; and the coronation scene 
matched it in splendor. No longer a few actors ran in and 
out to represent an army, but Richard is followed by fifty- 
eight of his men, appropriately distinguished as trumpeters, 
royal archers gorgeously dressed, banner-men in steel with 
various insignia, knights with white roses on their breasts and 
shields. Richmond's following is as complete, as appropri- 
ately dressed, and decorated with red roses. The dress dif- 
fers materially in fashion from that used hitherto. In the 
" Fly Leaf," which the manager was accustomed to append to 
the play-bill upon the appearance of a new revival to prepare 
the audience for the innovations in architecture and costume, 
he gives his authorities at length.®'^ Not only correctness, but 
great richness is shown in the costume, as in Richard's dress, 
which is described thus : 

" Crimson velvet shirt, edged with sable fur, gold waistcoat with black 
velvet sleeves puffed with gold coming through the hanging sleeve of the 
shirt, gold waist-belt carrying a cross-hilted sword and dagger, purple 
stockings, order of garter, under left knee, gold collar of suns and roses, 
black velvet cap with jewel, high riding boots and spurs, and gauntlets. 
In Act II. the same, with crimson velvet shoes with pointed toes instead 
of boots. . . . Act IV. King's Dress. Long gown representing cloth of 
gold edged with ermine, purple velvet robe edged with ermine and ermine 

" Meyrick's Ancient Armour, Col. C. H. Smith's Ancient Costume of 
Great Britain, Planche's unpublished work on the costume of Richard 
the Third, Strutt's Dresses and Habits of the People of England, Fairholt's 
Costume in England, Fosbroke's Encyclopcedia of Antiquities, Dugdale's 
Monasticon Anglicanum, Shaw's Dresses and Decorations, Stothard's 
Monumental Effigies, Froissart's Chronicles, Pugin's Glossary of Ecclesi- 
astical Ornament and Costume, and the Herald of OfEce. 



128 

cape, crimson stockings, purple velvet pointed shoes with cross-bars of gold, 
gold cord and tassels round waist, jewelled sword, diamond collar of suns 
and roses, gold and richly jewelled crown, without feathers, as worn by- 
Henry VI. After the Coronation scene, instead of the coronation robe, 
a puce velvet open robe with hanging sleeves, the velvet cap edged with 
ermine. Act V. Suit of complete armor, with a surcoat emblazoned with 
the arms of England." ®' 

Lady Anne's dress presented a markedly different appear- 
ance from the usual one for this part: 

" Black velvet demi-train with hanging sleeves, and tight blue shirt under 
to the wrist, square body, a muslin chimesette to the throat, fold of linen 
under chin, cowl of white linen, large black veil, square velvet head-dress 
(shape of that worn by Neapolitan peasantry). Second dress : Surcoat of 
sea-green trimmed with gold and ermine, under-dress of orange-colored 
cloth with tight sleeves, cowl of silver, and jewelled head-dress." 

As in the case of the performance at Sadler's Wells, Richard 
was thoughtfully, intelligently acted, but with none of the 
originality of the days of Cooke or Kean. It was a time of 
excellent second-rate talent, when the traditions that had gath- 
ered about this character were carried on by such men as 
George Bennett and Henry Marston. 

In regard to the text, Kean set forth his views in the " Fly 
Leaf." This ran as follows: 

" In selecting the play of * King Richard the Third,' I have, upon mature 
consideration, decided on adopting the well-known version of Colley Gibber, 
instead of going back to the original text of Shakespeare. The text has 
been practically declared by the greatest ornaments of the drama, less fitted 
in its integrity for representation on the stage than almost any other 
generally acted play of the great poet ; whilst, on the other hand, the 
tragedy, as modified by Gibber, being rather a ccndensation than an altera- 
tion of Shakespeare (the interpolations themselves being chiefly selections 
from his other plays), has been pronounced one of the most admirable and 
skilful instances of dramatic adaptations ever known. . , . With such 
distinguished precedents for my guide, I might well hesitate in reverting, 
on the present occasion, to the original text, even if their judgment had 
not been sanctioned by the voice of experience, and were it not also a 
fact that the tragedy of ' King Richard the Third,' as adapted by Gibber, 
is most intimately associated with the traditionary admiration of the public 
for those renowned and departed actors."®' 

*' A portrait of Gharles Kean as Richard may be found in Tallis' Drawing- 
Room Table Book, from the original painting by Reid. 

*' The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean, F.S.A., by John 



129 

This is interesting and shows the trend of public opinion, 
from the very fact that the manager thought an apology 
necessary. 

The performance does not seem to have been repeated, nor 
did it meet with entire favor. It was given for only nineteen 
nights, a short " run " at this time, when plays were being 
acted for twenty weeks at a stretch. The public seemed to 
feel that in the superabundance of scenery and " effects," the 
play was almost left out, that the dramatic interest was being 
exchanged for something else of less value.'^" 

After the performances of " Richard the Third " at Sadler's 
Wells in 1862, the play seems to have returned to its former 
position in the stock plays of the best houses. In the 6o's and 
early 70's, Henry Irving was establishing his " monopoly of 
stage villains " in the provinces and London, and we find no 
greater Richard than the " robustious " Barry Sullivan at 
Drury Lane until Irving's performance of the play at the 
Lyceum in 1877. With this performance a new kind of 
Richard made his appearance, and the Shakespearian text 
received a fuller vindication than had been possible before. It 
was the first time on the modern stage that a great actor had 
appeared with the original form. 

Irving's adaptation of the play consists entirely in cutting 
out certain scenes chiefly epic, but no characters are dropped 
except the children of Clarence, and there is no rearrangement 
of scenes. The omissions in detail are as follows. 

Act I (Sh. I, I, 2). — Chiefly shortened in the speeches of 
Lady Anne. 

Act II (Sh. I, 3-1 1 end). — The speeches of the Queen and 
of Margaret are cut down. Most of the conversation of the 
murderers is omitted, making the murder of Clarence a short 

William Cole, London, 1859, page lor. For the very slight changes, such 
as the omission of lines, etc., see Lacy's Acting Edition of Plays, Vol. 13 
(Richard the Third). This gives the play as performed in 1854, at the 
Royal Princess's Theatre, London. 

''" A newspaper of the time remarks : " The little importance which Mr. 
Kean attaches to good acting needs no other proof than the fact of his 
generally taking the principal characters himself." On over-staging, see 
Macready's Reminiscences, page 685. 
10 



130 

scene. The scene of the nobles about the dying King Edward 
is much shortened. The remaining scenes of Act II are 
omitted. 

Act III. — The principal omissions are the scene between 
Hastings and the pursuivant, later Buckingham (Sh. Ill, 2), 
the leading of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan to death (Sh, III, 3), 
the speech of the scrivener (Sh. Ill, 6), and sections from the 
speeches of Buckingham and Richard in the scene in Baynard 
Castle (Sh. Ill, 7). 

Act IV. — The act opens with Sh. IV, 2, the coronation scene. 
The part of Queen Margaret is omitted from this act, and the 
solicitation of Elizabeth is much shortened. The scene be- 
tween Derby and Urswick is omitted. 

Act V. — Scenes i, 2 and 3, as far as the scene in the camp 
of Richmond, are omitted. The ghosts of Prince Edward, 
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan do not appear, and the others 
speak only to Richard. The play closes with the fall of 
Richard, and nothing is spoken after his second cry of 

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse ! 

Irving's Richard was much admired as a convincing, sug- 
gestive interpretation. The epithet most often applied to it 
was " intellectual," while the princely character of his render- 
ing of the part was frequently commented upon. Tennyson, 
in analyzing his acting in this play, said : " I often wonder 
how he gets his distinctively Plantagenet look." The critics 
called him " splendidly Satanic," spoke of his superb mono- 
logue, and remarked how well the part displayed his person- 
ality, which was " peculiarly rich in the elements of the weird, 
the sinister, the sardonic, the grimly humorous, the keenly 
intellectual." Irving seemed to carry to finest culmination the 
conception of Richard's character which such romanticists as 
Hazlitt saw suggested in Edmund Kean's presentation, his sub- 
tlety, imagination; but in Irving's case with more of that 
" pride of intellect " which Coleridge took as the predominat- 
ing note in Shakespeare's play.'^^ 

'^ The staging of the play while beautiful, was not extravagant. Indeed 
Irving, in his speech to the Garrick Club, cites this as an instance where 
success was not achieved through splendid mounting. 



131 

The play, although commended on all sides, was not repeated 
for twenty years, until 1896, nor was it given^^ ^^ ^^^ ^f 
Irving's visits in America.'^^ Moreover, at its later revival, 
the success was only partial.^* These performances and 
Irving's presentation of the part are noteworthy, however, in 
the history of the play in marking the establishment of the 
Shakespearian text upon the stage, and at least the measurable 
vindication of its superiority, if not its complete victory over 
the altered form. It is significant to notice that in spite of 
the fact that in returning to Shakespeare, Irving had been 
heralded as foreswearing the melodrama of Gibber, his per- 
formance in the second revival of the play is described as " a 
little more highly colored " and as containing " here and there 
touches which almost verge upon the melodramatic." This 
seems in a measure to sum up the long history of the play from 
the melodramatic and un-Shakespearian performances of the 
eighteenth century, through the attempts to avoid these affects 
in the nineteenth century " restorations," to the unintentional 
recognition of the melodramatic in the Shakespearian plav 
itself.^s ^ ^ 

^^ Except Act I, with which Irving closed his first engagement in America 
November 24, 1883. See T. A. Brown, History of the New York Stage' 
page 305. 

'^In America, in the meantime, as early as 1871, the Shakespearian text 
was used at Niblo's Garden, New York, combined with great elaborateness 
of scenery and costume. 

'*A correspondent to The Evening Post for Wednesday, November 21, 
1906, says: "The records of the London Lyceum do not show that the' 
Irving revival of 'King Richard III.' was a profitable venture; while I 
had the distinguished actor's word for it that his personal achievement in 
the role was a matter of satisfaction to neither himself nor his clientele. 
He spoke to me, in 1901, in Philadelphia, to the effect that he regarded 
' Kmg Richard III.' and ' Coriolanus ' as his chief mistakes in management." 

'''In Germany the stage version of Franz Dingelstedt is notable as 
showing the Meiningen methods of individualizing the minor characters. 
The management of the ghost scene is also interesting, as one of the 
various attempts to make this scene effective and quasi-convincing. The 
stage directions read: " Der hintere Vorhangsimes Zeltes theilt sich 
langsam. Die ganze Tiefe der Biihne, in Wolken gehiillt, wird sichbar 
Im Mittlegrund erscheinen auf einer Erhohung, in magischem, nich zu 
hellem Lichte, die Geister; im Hintergrunde das Innere des Zeltes Rich- 



132 

Thus have we followed the history of " Richard the Third " 
through one hundred and fifty years, from Garrick, who first 
made its possibilities evident to modern audiences and used it 
during his long career as one of his most successful plays, 
through the period of the classical, heroic interpretation of 
John Kemble and the impersonation of Kean, vivid and con- 
vincing especially on the emotional side, to Irving, when, after 
a lapse of fifty years, we again have an original conception of 
the character. Other lines of development have been followed 
in the successive experiments in staging made by Kemble, 
Phelps and Charles Kean, and in the attempts to " restore " 
the Shakespearian text, which with Irving attained a measure- 
able success. That these efforts in restoration have met with 
only partial success may be explained, in part at least, by the 

mond's, den man, heller als die Geister bleuchtet, ruhig auf seinem Lager 
schlummern, sieht. Richard liegt rechts auf der Biihne, sich unruhig bin 
und her walzend ; Richmond links in der Hohe. Zwischen beiden stehen die 
Geister, ihre Reden bald rechts herab in den Vordergrund, bald links hinauf 
in die Hohe richtend." Theatre von Franz Dingelstedt, Richard III, 1877. 
As in the preceding periods, so in the nineteenth century, the figure of 
Richard the Third appeared in other plays. In 18 18, Richard Duke of 
York was performed at Drury Lane on December 22, and once afterward. 
This was a compilation of the three parts of Henry the Sixth, with the 
introduction of passages from Chapman and other Elizabethan dramatists. 
See Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 640. Charles Kemble condensed 
the Henry the Sixth' plays into a single one, which was never performed. 
He used in addition Richard the Second and Richard the Third. See Henry 
Irving Shakespeare, Vol. II. In 1757, C. F. Weisse produced a Richard 
der Dritte, but he disclaims any imitation of Shakespeare. The story 
appeared in France under the title of Les Enfants d'Edouard, written by 
Casimir Delavigne. Fechter " doubled " the characters of Buckingham 
and Tyrrel in this with great success, and is thus brought into some slight 
connection with the history of Richard the Third. (He seems never to 
have used the English play.) The dramatis personce may give some idea 
of it; Edward the Fifth, Richard Duke of York, Richard Duke of Glou- 
cester, Buckingham, Tyrrell, Queen Elizabeth, Lucy the Queen's maid, 
Emma and Fanny, court ladies, William the Queen's serving-man, Cardinal 
Bouchier, Archbishop of York, Digton, Forrest, Lords, etc. A play on 
Edward the Fourth and Elizabeth Grey appeared at Covent Garden on 
October 10, 1829, by Isabel Hill, called First of May, or a Royal Love- 
Match. It was acted eleven times. See Genest, op. cit.. Vol. IX, page 
S13. 



133 

fact that with the rejection of the Gibber text, which was 
frankly melodramatic according to the modern ideas of 
melodrama, and in so far represented a familiar equivalent 
for the heightened effects of the Elizabethan play, the 
" restored " " Richard the Third " appeals to literary rather 
than to dramatic interest. So far as the stage is concerned, 
there are evidences that the struggle for the Shakespearian 
form that has long closed for all the other plays, is destined 
to wage for an indefinite period in the history of " Richard 
the Third," for Gibber's form, while nominally despised by 
first-class actors and the critical public, is still holding the 
stage and is still preferred by a large part of the community 
whose opinions cannot be ignored. 



VI 

Richard the Third in America 

The earliest recorded Shakespearian play in America — The Philadelphia 
Company — The first English company — Theatricals during the Revolution — 
The revival of theatrical activity after the war — The Old Park Theatre- 
Last days of the American Company — Cooke — Edmund Kean's visits to 
America — J. B. Booth — Forrest — Charles Kean — Some curious performances 
of " Richard the Third " — Edwin Booth — The " restoration " of " Richard 
the Third " at Niblo's Garden — Booth's version — Comparison with Irving's 
— Booth's contemporaries — General significance of the history of the play 
in America. 

Dunlap, in his history of the American theatre, quite arbi- 
trarily begins his narrative with the first EngHsh company 
that came to this country, merely noticing that " as early as 
1749 it is on record that the magistracy of the city (Philadel- 
phia) had been disturbed by some idle young men perpetrating 
the murder of sundry plays in the skirts of the town, but the 
culprits had been arrested and bound over to their good beha- 
vior after confessing their crime and promising to spare the 
poor poets for the future.^" This passage is interesting in 
that it suggests the existence of a native organization of actors 
in America at this early date, prior to the English company 
of 1752, and in that it gives early evidence of the attitude of 
the Quaker City toward players, a factor that afterwards had 
to be reckoned with in the efforts to establish the drama in 
that city. The first theatrical notice which has been preserved 
in this country is thought to relate to the later attempts of 
these same " idle young men." It reads as follows : 

By his Excellency's Permission, 

At the Theatre in Nassau Street, 

On Monday, the sth day of March next (1750) 

Will be presented the Historical Tragedy of 

King Richard 3d ! 

^A History of the American Theatre. New York, 1832, page 17. 

134 



135 

Wrote originally by Shakespeare, 
and altered by Colley Cibber Esqr. 
In this play is contained the Death of King Henry 6th ; — the artful acquisi- 
tion of the crown by King Richard ; — the murder of the Princes 
in the Tower ; — the landing of the Earl of Richmond, and 

the Battle of Bosworth Field. 

Tickets will be ready to be delivered by Thursday next, 

and to be had of the Printer hereof. 

Pitt, 5 shillings ; Gallery, 3 shillings. 

To begin precisely at half an hour after 6 o'clock, and no 

person to be admitted behind the scenes.'' 

This is the first recorded dramatic performance in New York, 
and while the opening play was probably one that the company 
had already given in Philadelphia, it is the initial Shakespear- 
ian performance in America of which we have any account. 

The managers of the Philadelphia Company^ were Messrs. 
Murray and Kean, the latter playing the leading roles in trag- 
edy and comedy. Thomas Kean is therefore, with odd coin- 
cidence of name, the earliest American Richard. We know 
almost nothing about him, or whether he was an amateur or 
professional actor, although the reception of his company in 
New York would indicate that they were something more than 
mere " idlers." The place of this performance was the first 
Nassau Street Theatre, situated between John Street and 
Maiden Lane. It was an improvised theatre in a house which 
had belonged to the estate of the Honorable Rip Van Dam, a 
two-storied building with high gables. The stage was raised 
five feet from the floor; the scenery, curtains and wings had 
been brought by the managers in their property trunks ; a green 
drop-curtain was suspended from the ceiling; and the wings 
were made of a pair of paper screens. Six wax lights were 
in front of the stage, and the house was lighted by a chandelier 
made of a barrel hoop through which were driven a few nails 

^ Quoted from the Weekly Postboy, a continuation of the New York 
Gazette, published by James Parker, in Records of the New York Stage 
from 1750 to i860, by Joseph N. Ireland, Vol. I, page 3. 

' In a New York news item in the Pennsylvania Gazette of March 6th, 
1750, they are referred to as "a Company of comedians from Philadel- 
phia." History of the American Theatre, by George O. Seilhamer, Vol. 
I, page 6, note. 



136 

into which were stuck so many candles. The orchestra con- 
sisted of a German flute, a horn and drums, and the scenery- 
included two drop scenes representing a castle and a wood, and 
bits of landscape, river and mountain.* Under such crude con- 
ditions the drama, in Shakespeare's " Richard the Third," was 
introduced, so far as we positively know, to the colonial town 
of New York. 

This was the only Shakespearian play given by the company 
during its first season, but it was repeated on March 12, when 
the farce, " Beau in the Suds," was added, and on April 30 
with the " Mock Doctor." In the second season in New York, 
on February 25, 1751, we find the first instance of the play 
being given for a benefit, a sure indication of its popularity, 
in this case for Mrs. Taylor, evidently the leading lady, and 
therefore the first Queen Elizabeth. An added evidence of 
its drawing powers is gathered from the announcement, which 
also gives an idea of an evening's entertainment of the time: 

By his Excellency's Permission, 

At the Theatre in Nassau Street, 

(For the Benefit of Mrs. Taylor;) 

On Monday the 25th Instant will be presented the tragical history of 
King Richard III. To which well be added a Ballad Opera called Damon 
and Phillida and a favourite Dialogue called Jockey and Jenny to be sung 
by Mr. Woodham and Mrs. Taylor. As there wasn't much company at 
Love for Love, the Managers took the Profit arising by that Night to 
themselves and gave Mrs. Taylor another Benefit ; who hopes that the 
Ladies and Gentlemen that favour'd the other Benefit will be so kind as to 
favour hers with their Company.® 

In the following seasons it was frequently so used, and these 
benefit announcements throw interesting light upon the per- 
sonnel of the troupe, which at this time is supposed to have 
numbered at least seventeen. Thus one performance was 
given for the benefit of Master Dickey Murray, who probably 
represented the earliest Prince Edward or Duke of York; 
another was for Mr. Jago, " as he has never had a benefit 
before and is just out of prison "; and one was advertised for 

* A History of the New York Stage, from the First Performances in 1732 
to 1901, by T. Allston Brown. New York, 1903, Vol. I, pages 2-3. 
" Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 9. 



137 

Mrs. Davis, " to enable her to pay off her time," showing that 
the practice of indenture obtained in theatrical enterprise as 
well as in other undertakings. 

When the company is next heard of, the manager is Robert 
Upton, who on January 2-^, 1752, appeared as Richard, and 
thus is the second representative of the part in America. Up- 
ton had been sent as advance agent for the English company, 
but upon his arrival in New York, he seized the opportunity of 
a star engagement with native performers. Of this manager- 
actor we know little, and his season was a short one, as he 
soon returned to England. The company was reorganized 
however, and in existence for more than twenty years, but 
its work lay chiefly in the south and we have no further full 
accounts of the performances. We know that it was in 
Annapolis in 1752, an important plcae at that time, and that 
" Richard the Third " was given twice, the parts of Richard 
and Richmond being taken by Wynell and Herbert of the Eng- 
lish Company which had just come over.^ 

From this meager account of the Philadelphia Comedians 
it is seen that, whether made up of amateurs or professional 
actors who had found their way to America, the organization 
was probably of native origin, and, long before the establish- 
ment of an English company here, attempted to reproduce in 
this country what was most popular in London at the time. 
In this early transplanting of the British drama across the 
Atlantic, " Richard the Third " is found to be the first Shakes- 
pearian play attempted of which we have any record, and seems 
to have proved one of the most successful, and one constantly 
in requisition for special theatrical occasions.'^ 

° Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 33. 

^ The late Judge Charles P. Daly established the existence of a play- 
house in New York as early as 1733, but finds that it was principally used 
for the exhibition of puppet shows and such entertainments. There is 
also evidence that in Williamsburg, Va., the drama had been cultivated 
as early as 1736, from the notice in the Virginia Gazette of September loth, 
which read : " This evening wil be performed at the Theatre by the young 
Gentlemen of the College, the Tragedy of ' Cato,' and on Monday, Wednes- 
day and Friday next will be acted the following Comedies by the young 
Gentlemen and Ladies of this country — The ' Busybody,' the ' Recruiting 



138 

In the meantime, in England, the American field offered 
tempting prospects for speculation in dramatic as well as in 
other lines. In 1752, therefore, William and Lewis Hallam, 
said to have been of Goodman's Fields,^ organized a company 
which arrived here on September 5 of that same year. There 
are rumors of earlier English companies here. Anthony Aston, 
the contemporary of Colley Gibber and the continuator of his 
" Lives of the Actors," said that he had acted in New York in 
1732, and Moody, an actor in Garrick's company at Drury 
Lane, is supposed to have visited Jamaica in 1745, and there 
carried on the first dramatic enterprise in America. But this 
company brought over by Lewis Hallam (for William Hallam 
was merely the " backer," and did not accompany the actors 
to America), seems to be the first regularly organized for the 
American field. They went to Williamsburg, Virginia, since 
the south offered more encouragement to theatrical perform- 
ances than the Puritans or Dutch in the north, or the Quakers 
in Philadelphia. Only two of their performances during the 
first season have been recorded, the first, according to Dunlap 
(who obtained the account from Lewis Hallam, Jr.), being 
" Merchant of Venice "^ with " Lethe " as the after piece,^** 

Officer ' and the ' Beaux Stratagem.' " Quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit., 
Vol. I, page 39. There is evidence of a play-house at Williamsburg even 
earlier, as is shown by the description of the town given by Hugh Jones 
in The Present State of Virginia, published between 1710 and 1723. He 
writes : " Not far from hence is a large area for a market place, near which 
is a play-house and good bowling green." American Historical Record, 
March, 1872. There are evidences of a theatre of some kind in existence 
in New York in 1736; and in Boston in 1750 two young Englishmen, 
assisted by young men of the town, gave a performance of Otway's Orphan 
at a coffee-house in King Street. Beyond bare reference and shadowy 
tradition however, little is known of these earliest native efforts. 

* Seilhamer does not accept this tradition, but thinks that they came from 
a provincial theatre. 

"In 1852 a centennial celebration of the introduction of the drama into 
America was held in Castle Garden, when The Merchant of Venice was 
given -in commemoration of its performance at Williamsburg on September 
Sth, 1752. The Philadelphia comedians haa played The Merchant of 
Venice as early as 1751. 

^^ John Esten Cooke has used the situation of this performance for the 



139 

and the other " Othello " with " Harlequin Collector." In 1753 
the company went to New York. Among the earliest plays 
there was " Richard the Third,"^^ which was given " by par- 
ticular desire," on November 12, with " Devil to Pay." The 
cast was as follows: 

Richard Mr. Rigby. 

Henry VI Mr. Hallam. 

Prince of Wales i Master L. Hallam. 

Duke of York Master A. Hallam. 

Richmond Mr. Clarkson. 

Buckingham Mr. Malone. 

Norfolk Mr. Miller. 

Stanley Mr. Singleton. 

Catesby Mr. Adcock. 

Lieutenant Mr. Bell. 

Queen Elizabeth Mrs. Hallam. 

Lady Anne Mrs. Adcock. 

Duchess of Rutland Mrs. Rigby." 

Of this Richard we know nothing, except that his acting of 
the French doctor in " The Anatomist " made that piece the 
most popular one in the company's repertoire. He was evi- 
dently the leading actor, playing tragedy and high comedy 
parts.^^ The theatre in which they played was one built for 
them on the site of the house in Nassau Street used by the 
older comedians. 

In 1758 Hallam was again in New York, and built another 
theatre on Cruger's Wharf, where on February 7, 1759, " Rich- 
ard the Third " was given with " Damon and Phillida." The 
Richard was probably Harman, a recruit from England, with 
his wife as Lady Anne, and Mrs. Douglass, formerly Mrs. 
Hallam, as Elizabeth, while young Hallam played Richmond, 
a " star " cast for those days. The conditions must have been 

central interest in his Virginia Comedians. Great liberty is taken with 
dates, however, the performance being placed in 1763, and the parts of 
some of the actors are confused. 

"The other Shakespearian plays were Lear, on January 14, 1754, and 
Romeo and Juliet on the 28th. 

" Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 53. 

^^ Rigby was the first representative in America of Romeo and of many 
other stock characters. See Ireland, op. cit.. Vol. I, page 18. 



\ 



140 

most primitive, for the building was evidently little more than a 
barn, and was soon after demolished. 

In the following seasons at Philadelphia, Annapolis and New 
York, " Richard the Third " constantly appeared and was a 
favorite, as before, for benefits. A notable performance of 
these early days was that at the Southwark Theatre in Philadel- 
phia, where " Richard the Third " was given on December 5, 
1766, the first Shakespearian play performed in this first per- 
manent theatre in America.^* At this time the part was taken 
by Lewis Hallam the younger, long a favorite and now the 
leading actor of the country. Douglass, in the meantime, was 
building a permanent theatre in New York in John Street, 
which was opened on December 7, 1767, and where " Richard 
the Third " was played on the 14th. ^^ The audience on this 
occasion was the attraction rather more than the fortunes of 
the hero, for a Cherokee delegation, visiting General Gage at 
the time, was present at the play and excited much curiosity. 
The Pennsylvania Gazette of December 17th had the following 
item: 

" The expectation of seeing the Indian chiefs at the play on Monday 
night occasioned a great concourse of people. The house was crowded, 
and it is said great numbers were obliged to go away for want of room. 

" The Indians regarded the play, which was ' King Richard III,' with 
seriousness and attention, but as it cannot be supposed that they were 
suiiiiciently acquainted with the language to understand the plot and design 
and enter into the spirit of the author, their countenances and behavior 
were rather expressive of surprise and curiosity than any other passions. 
Some of them were much surprised and diverted at the tricks of 
Harlequin." '® 

" During this season the first performance of Cymbeline in America took 
place on June 29, 1767. Garrick's version was used. Godfrey's Prince of 
Parthia, not the first American play, as has been asserted, but the first 
written, acted and printed in America, was played for the first and only 
time during this season, 

^^ The other Shakespearian plays of the season were Cymbeline, Romeo 
and Juliet, Lear, Merchant of Venice, Henry the Fourth, Macbeth, Othello, 
Hamlet, and Garrick's version of Much Ado, Catherine and Petruchio. See 
Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. I, pages 213-218. 

^® Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. I, pages 42 and 219. Another interesting notice 
of a visit of an Indian " emperor " and " empress " to the theatre is given 
on page 220. The pantomime here given was Harlequin's Vagaries, which 
had highly pleased the Indians when at the theatre in Williamsburg in 1752. 



141 

The benefit of the three Misses Storer, on May 2, 1768, 
shows the character of an evening's entertainment when the 
play was only a part of the attraction. " Richard the Third " 
was the piece ; between the second and third acts Foote's inter- 
lude of " Taste " was performed, and between the third and 
fourth acts Miss Storer sang the celebrated song, " Sweet 
Echo " ; the entertainment ended with the farce, " Miss in her 
Teens." Another theatrical attraction is indicated in the notice 
of the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Douglass on June 14, 1773, 
when the prologue to " Richard the Third " was delivered by 
Mr, Douglass " in character of a Master Mason."^^ 

During the following seasons before the Revolution " Rich- 
ard the Third " continued to be popular and frequently played, 
until on October 24, 1778, Congress passed a resolution recom- 
mending a suspension of all amusements, and thus brought to a 
close the colonial period of the American stage. Throughout 
this period Lewis Hallam had held the part of Richard without 
a rival, for Rigby seems to have disappeared from the bills 
very soon. In appearance Dunlap describes the former as " of 
middle stature or above, thin, straight, and well taught as a 
dancer and fencer " ;^^ and according to John Bernard in his 
method was " formed more on the model of Quin than of Gar- 
rick."i9 

Another contemporary wrote : 

" No one could tread the stage with more ease ... In tragedy it can 
not be denied that his declamation was either mouthing or ranting; yet 
a thorough master of all the tricks and finesse of his trade, his manner 
was both graceful and impressive, ' tears in his eyes, distraction in his 
aspect, a broken voice, and his whole function suiting with forms to his 
conceit.' He was, ... at Philadelphia as much the soul of the South- 
wark Theatre as ever Garrick was of Drury Lane." ^ 

Of the women who had taken the part of Queen Elizabeth, 
Mrs. Douglass was the most notable. She had played " legiti- 
mate " roles at the Wells Theatre, such as Lady Percy in 

" Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 60. 
^' Op. cit., page 81. 

^^Retrospections in America, page 265. 

^° Memoirs of a Life Chiefly Passed in Pennsylvania, by Captain Graydon. 
Quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. I, page 202. 



142 

" Henry the Fourth," Desdemona, and Angelica in " Love for 
Love," and her name is unbrokenly connected with the leading 
parts on the American stage from 1752 to the Revolution. 
Mrs. Harman who played the part of the Duchess of York in 
1766-7 and Anne in 1759-60, is of interest as being the daugh- 
ter of Charlotte Charke and grand-daughter of Colley Gibber. 
She seems to have been a useful member of the company and 
was, according to her obituary, " a just actress, possessed 
much merit in low comedy, and dressed all her characters 
with infinite propriety, but her figure prevented her from suc- 
ceeding in tragedy and genteel comedy." Another Elizabeth 
was Mrs. Morris, for a time the greatest attraction in the com- 
pany, a tall stately woman of the Siddons type, invariably 
described as piquing the public with " a very mysterious man- 
ner." 

These pre-Revolutionary performances offer little of note 
in themselves, and no performer in them is now remembered. 
Of the actual conditions which obtained we know little, but 
they probably differed in no wise from those of traveling 
companies in England.^^ Of most interest in this colonial 
period is the natural persistence here of the older method of 
acting, when in England the star of Garrick was at its mer- 
idian; and the predominance of the one American Gompany 
which enjoyed a monopoly of the theatrical field akin to that 
of the licensed houses in London. 

The Continental Congress had put a period to theatrical 
activity as far as its jurisdiction extended, but the stage offered 
a grateful resource to the British officers stationed in the 
larger cities in the enforced idleness of winter quarters.^^ 
Under General Burgoyne in Boston theatricals were very popu- 
lar, but we have little information about the repertoire, except 

^ It is interesting to find some features of the early history of the drama 
repeated in America, as shown in the laws against players, the prevalence 
of strolling companies, the necessity of recommendations when going from 
one place to another, and the persistence of the audience upon the stage. 
This last was abolished by Douglass in 1761. 

^ For a full discussion of this entertaining chapter in American stage 
history, see Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. II, Chapters II, III and IV. 



143 

that it included Mrs. Centlivre's " Busybody," Rowe's " Tam- 
erlane," and Hill's " Zara." Of the performances in New- 
York our information is more extensive. In 1777, the com- 
pany opened the John Street Theatre, jocularly called Theatre 
Royal, with Fielding's " Tom Thumb," and until 1781, per- 
formed throughout the successive seasons with some marked 
degree of success, and with the favor of Generals Howe and 
Clinton. It was inevitable that " Richard the Third " should 
have been chosen for performance, but the first record of it 
that we have is in the second New York season, on March 6, 
1779, when it was given with " The Lying Valet." It was 
repeated on March 18, a " new comic dance " being substituted 
for the farce, and again on April 26th, these closely recurring 
repetitions indicating a favorable reception. In the third sea- 
son we have records of three performances of " Richard the 
Third," on March 6, 1780, when it was announced that the 
characters would be " dressed in the Habits of the times," 
suggesting the acquisition of stage costumes from some quar- 
ter, on March 18, and on April 19.-^ In the last season it 
appeared once, on May 28, with " The Mayor of Garratt." 

When Clinton's Thespians, as they were called, began their 
perform.ances, the young subalterns took the parts of women, 
but in the second season they announced that these parts were 
to be performed " by young ladies and grown gentlewomen 
who never appeared on any stage before." Later, at least one 
professional actress was numbered among them, Mrs. Tomlin- 
son, who had been a member of the American Company from 
1758 to 1772. She had been off the stage nearly six years at 
this time, but, with her knowledge of stage-craft, she was no 
doubt a valuable member of this amateur company. The lead- 
ing lady in New York in 1779, was a young English girl, to 
whose acting high praise is given. It is conceivable that, in 
the performances of " Richard the Third," she should have 
represented Elizabeth, and Mrs. Tomlinson the Duchess of 
York. Dunlap has identified some of the performers in these 
plays, as Major Williams, of the artillery, in the part of Rich- 

-^ The farces were Polly Honeycomb^ Lethe, and Hob in the Well. 



144 

ard, Captain Stephen Payne Adye, Artillery and Judge Advo- 
cate, in that of Henry the Sixth, and Captain Thomas Shreve 
of the Lord Mayor.^* The young and handsome Major Andre, 
while in New York as Clinton's aide, probably took part in 
these plays, although we do not know what parts he assumed. 
He gave efficient help as scene painter when the Thespians were 
in Philadelphia in 1778, and these scenes were used for many 
years after the Revolution.^^ 

There is some evidence that the Continental officers craved 
like entertainment, and attempted theatrical performances in 
Philadelphia in 1778, but Congress promptly put a stop to it on 
the grounds that " frequenting play-houses and theatrical enter- 
tainments has a fatal tendency to divert the minds of the peo- 
ple from a due attention to the means necessary for the de- 
fense of the country and the preservation of their liberties."^® 
According to a letter written by the French minister on Novem- 
ber 24, the prohibition came just in time to prevent " a public 
(theatrical) performance, given by army officers and Whig 
citizens. "^'^ 

In the south, away from the immediate seat of operations, 
theatrical activities revived as early as 1781, when, in spite 
of the resolutions of Congress in 1778, a Baltimore company 
built a theatre and gave a season from January to June, 1782. 
The history of this company is of little importance, most of 
the names were new and soon disappeared from stage annals, 
but it is of some slight interest here that " Richard the Third " 
figured as the play with which the Baltimore theatre opened, 
and therefore the one which marked the revival of the drama 
in the south. Mr. Wall, the manager, took the leading part 
and his wife the part of Elizabeth. After another season in 
Baltimore in which " Richard the Third " was performed 

^* Lieutenant Spencer of the Queen's Rangers probably figured in these 
plays, for in 1785, we find him in Bath performing Richard the Third. 
Dunlap, op. cit., page 54. 

-^ A description of one of these scenes is given by Durang in his History 
of the Philadelphia Stage, and quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. II, 
page 31. 

^^ Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. II, pages 51-2. 

^ Ditto, page 52. 



145 

twice, the company, under the management of Dennis Ryan, 
came to New York. Here " Richard the Third " was given on 
August 13, with the after piece, " The Citizen," by Murphy. 
The principal parts were taken by amateurs, perhaps some of 
the mihtary Thespians. Thus, Queen EHzabeth was by a 
"lady," and Richard, Richmond, Tressel, and the lieutenant 
of the Tower by " gentlemen." 

During the Revolution, the American Company had been 
in Jamaica from 1779 to 1782, but when the war was over, 
Hallam returned to Philadelphia and New York and felt the 
public pulse with a series of " entertainments."^^ When, after 
these were favorably received, he ventured to announce regular 
plays, it was still necessary to appease the anti-theatrical ele- 
ment, particularly strong among the Quakers. " Richard the 
Third " was revived in Philadelphia, therefore, in the guise of 
a "moral dialogue," under the title of "Fate of Tyranny." 
So it was announced on July 23, 1788, and on November i,^^ 
but the prohibitions against dramatic performances were re- 
pealed in 1789, and the play then emerged under its proper 
title. 

Hallam opened the John Street theatre in 1785 with Henry, 
who had brought from England the best company yet seen in 

^The advertisement for one of these suggests that Richard the Third 
may have been foisted upon the public unaware. Thus, in the entertain- 
ment given at Philadelphia on December 2, 1784, the first part is an- 
nounced thus : " A serious investigation of Shakespear's morality illustrated 
by his most striking characters faithfully applied to the task of mingling 
profit with amusement. On the first evening the instability of human 
greatness ; the inevitable and miserable consequences of vice ; the piercings 
of a wounded conscience and the divine attributes of mercy will be repre- 
sented according to the animated descriptions of the illustrious bard." 
This entertainment opened with a " Monody " to the memory of the Chiefs 
who had fallen in the cause of American liberty, and closed with a 
"Rondelay" celebrating the independence of America. Quoted by Seil- 
hamer, op. cit.. Vol. II, pages 165-6. Another entertainment on the 14th 
of January, 1785, advertises Garrick's Ode on dedicating a building to 
Shakespeare, two scenes from Loutherbourg's Eudiphusicon, much admired 
in London at the time, and Garrick's favorite address by an impoverished 
poet, all these showing the dependence on London attractions. 
=" Seilhamer, op. cit.. Vol. II, pages 245 and 248. 
11 



146 

America. " Richard the Third " figures no less than three 
times during this season with Hallam as Richard. A notable 
performance was that on February 3, 1787, when " Richard 
the Third " and " The American Citizen," were acted in honor 
of the arrival of the ship, " Empress of China," from Canton, 
this vessel having been the first with the privilege of presenting 
the American flag in Chinese waters.^** Later, when New York 
became the national capital, we find it frequently given, figur- 
ing as one of the chief plays during the last days of the 
supremacy of the original American Company. 

The theatrical situation became greatly changed during the 
last years of the century. The American Company no longer 
held the ground undisputed, for these years are marked by a 
growth of theatrical enterprise and the consequent rise of man- 
agers who rivaled each other in securing the best English 
talent available. Among the recruits which the envoy of the 
American Company brought from England at this time, the 
most important was John Hodgkinson. In the season of 
1793-4 he made his first appearance at John Street in tragedy 
as " Richard the Third," and he remained the leading Richard 
of the company during its remaining years at this theatre.'^^ 
A contemporary description of Hodgkinson's performance of 
this part is tempered with more restraint than usually shown 
when reporting the impression made by a " star." It ran thus : 

" Though we do not pretend to say that Mr. Hodgkinson equals a 
Kemble, yet he certainly did great justice to the part. His action was 
violent, as the character requires, and at the same time not unstrained. 
If we must censure him, it is for his manner of speaking — he lets his voice 
fall too suddenly, speaking, to borrow a term from music, in octaves ; he, 
however, excels any that ever appeared here in the character of Richard." ^^ 

^ T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 8-9. 

^^ A Narrative of his Connection with the Old American Company. 
From the Fifth of September, 1792, To the Thirty-First of March, 1797, 
by John Hodgkinson. New York, 1797. This gives some account of the 
theatrical business transactions of the time, but throws little light on stage 
conditions. He does give an item about the orchestra, which he says " was 
composed of about six musicians, some of whom were incapable of their 
business." 

^ Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. Ill, page 61. 



147 

Later he was called the "American Kemble," while John 
Bernard, who greatly admired him, gave him the name of the 
" provincial Garrick " ; and these titles do not seem to have been 
due entirely to hyperbole, for Hodgkinson's successes at Bath 
and Bristol before he came to America, were notable. He 
is described by Dunlap who was closely associated with him, 
as " six feet ten inches in height, but too fleshy to appear tall — 
well formed in the neck, chest, shoulders and arms, but clumsy 
in his lower extremities, his ankles being thick and his knees 
inclining inward. His face was round, his nose broad, and 
his eyes, which were of unequal sizes, gray, with large pupils 
and dark eyelashes. His complexion was almost colorless and 
his hair dark-brown." With such personal qualities, his 
adoption of the Kemble manner was inevitable. Mrs. Melmoth, 
who played the part of Elizabeth to Hodgkinson's Richard, 
had been a successful actress at Drury Lane in lyyG-y, before 
that at Covent Garden ; and while her figure was at this time 
ill-adapted for most parts, her acting was excellent enough to 
render her a leading performer. 

In the meantime Thomas Wignell had opened the Chestnut 
Street Theatre in Philadelphia,^^ built on the model of Covent 
Garden, with scenery painted from designs by De Louther- 
bourg and both scenery and wardrobe imported from England. 
" Richard the Third " was given in this new theatre on April 
21, 1795, probably with James Fennell as Richard and Mrs. 
Whitlock as Elizabeth. In Boston under Powell, and in New- 
port under Joseph Harper, theatrical companies were making 
their way against public opposition and in these places " Rich- 
ard the Third " was in constant requisition. It seems unneces- 
sary to follow its fortunes in all of these centers, and therefore 

^It was at this theatre that Mrs. Merry (Elizabeth Brunton), considered 
a rival of Mrs. Siddons, and the first actress of eminence to cross the 
Atlantic, was introduced to the American public. I have found no record 
of her appearance in Richard the Third, but it is more than probable that 
it was in her repertoire. Aside from her importance in connection with 
the stage in this country, Mrs. Merry is of some curious interest as being 
the means of bringing America into touch with the Delia Cruscan vogue 
of the day, for her husband, Robert Merry, Delia Crusca, accompanied 
her and here spent the last years of his life. 



148 

the history of the play will hereafter be noted in New York 
only, as being typical of its history elsewhere. 

The last performance at the John Street Theatre took place 
on January 13, 1798, and with the opening of the Park 
Theatre^* on January 29 of the same year, a new era began 
for New York theatricals. This was the first well-equipped 
theatre in New York, for the John Street house was a barn- 
like building of modest pretensions. A description of the new 
theatre in the Daily Advertiser of January 31, tells us: 

" The stage was everything that could be wished. The scenery was 
executed in a most masterly style. The extensiveness of the scale upon 
which the scenes are executed, the correctness of the designs, and the 
elegance of the painting, presented the most beautiful views which the 
imagination can conceive. The scenery was of itself worth a visit to 
the theatre." 

It opened under the management of Hodgkinson and Wil- 
lian Dunlap, and was the house that for a half century 
presented the best of dramatic and histrionic art in America. 
In the history of this theatre we find " Richard the Third " in 
the regular stock repertoire, constantly given, used to open the 
season, the attraction year after year, and the last tragedy 
acted in this house fifty years later. It was therefore the last 
tragedy given under the management of the old American 
Company, which first presented this play in Nassau Street, for 
their history ends with this theatre. 

At the beginning of these fifty years we find Hodgkinson 
taking the leading parts. After he left New York in 1802, 
Thomas A. Cooper, who after a promising trial in London, 
had engaged with Wignell at Phidadelphia in 1797, became the 
leading tragedian in New York, and, after his predecessor's 
death, in 1805, in America.^^ He was a " paramount favorite 
with the public " for thirty years, and kept this position even 
after the advent of George Frederick Cooke, and until the 

^* A picture of the first Park Theatre, copied from a rare print, may be 
found in The American Historical Record of March, 1872. 

^" Cooper was educated by Godwin, and had been trained for the stage 
by Holcroft. He became a leader in the social life of New York, and was 
allied by marriage with some of the best families of the state. His second 
wife was the Sophy Sparkle (Miss Mary Fairlie) of Irving's Salmagundi. 
Ireland, op. cit.. Vol. I, page 156. 



149 

appearance of Kean and Booth.^*' John Bernard ranks him 
high, and speaks of him as " endowed with great genius, and 
the highest quahfications in face, voice and person," but as 
having Httle or no art and never striving to attain it.^^ He 
was of the Kemble school, declamatory, stately, " worthy of 
imitation both by pulpit and bar," says a contemporary, but 
his " Richard the Third " is denominated by the same authority 
" an execrable performance."^^ 

The erratic Fennell, already mentioned as one of Wignell's 
company in Philadelphia, an actor of some note in English and 
Scotch theatres and boasting the acme of theatrical experience 
in having acted with Mrs. Siddons, seems to have taken 
Cooper's place during the latter's absence in Europe in 1804. 
We have several records of his appearance up to 1810, just 
before Cooke's arrival. He was a towering person, with a 
full fleshy face, and deep solemn voice, his coldness and stiff- 
ness fitting him for characters like Brutus, and his Richard 
showing the same Kemble-like qualities as that of his prede- 
cessors.^^ 

Up to the arrival of George Frederick Cooke, therefore, we 
find that the theatre in America had made rapid advance to- 
ward more cosmopolitan conditions. While the only actor of 
more than third-rate ability seems to have been Hodgkinson, 
all of the three last mentioned are of interest as exhibiting 
the Kemble tradition in America. They represented at that 
time a new school. Jonathan Oldstyle, commenting upon the 
actors of the day,*" says that they " prefer walking upon plain 

^"Ireland, op. cit.. Vol. I, pages 156-7. 

^ Op. cit., page 267. 

^ F. C. Wemyss, Twenty-Six Years of the life of an Actor and Manager, 
page 96. Although I find no record of it, Mrs. Whitlock, Mrs. Siddon's 
sister, called the " American Siddons," probably played in Richard the 
Third with Cooper. She seems to have been of the Kemble type, master- 
ful, yet graceful, and with an exquisite voice. 

^® Fennell's biography, as it appears in his Apology (Philadelphia, 1814), 
filled with Utopian schemes and experiments in salt-making, bridge-building, 
and what not, is of more interest than his achievements on the stage. 

*" Mrs. Villiers, whom Irving mentions in Salmagundi as the Lady Mac- 
beth of the day, also figured in Richard the Third when Fennell was leading 
man. Knickerbocker Edition, 1871, pages 14-17. 



150 

ground to strutting on the stilts used by the tragic heroes of 
my day," and speaks of the ranting and roaring tragedian as 
almost banished from the New York stage. The staging of 
plays could be favorably compared with the practice in Lon- 
don, although the enthusiasm for archeological reproductions 
seems not yet to have reached our shores. Irving shows that 
there was the same incongruity in costume here as in the Lon- 
don theatres, remarking that the performers dress for the 
same piece in the fashions of different ages and countries, " so 
that while one actor is strutting about the stage in the cuirass 
and helmet of Alexander, another, dressed up in a gold-laced 
coat and bag-wig, with a chapeau de bras under his arm, is 
taking snuff in a fashion of one or two centuries back, and 
perhaps a third figures in Suwarrow boots, in the true style of 
modern buckism."*^ We find no records of innovation in any 
line, and see here as in London, the Gibber text the exclusive 
one, and with no further changes than were probably intro- 
duced in following Kemble. 

The most important event for the American stage, and for 
the history of the play in this country, in bringing it into un- 
precedented prominence, was the arrival of George Frederick 
Cooke in 1810. He opened his engagement in America with 
" Richard the Third," and played it frequently during the sea- 
son. With the same play he began all of his successive en- 
gagements, and appeared in it repeatedly throughout his con- 
nection with the New York stage, which continued until 1812. 
The acting of Gooke, his London success, his appearance with 
Kemble, and his later rivalry with Edmund Kean, have already 
been touched upon and need not be repeated here. His career 

" The Letters of Jonathan Oldstyle, Gent. By the author of the Sketch 
Book. Oldstyle's correspondent, speaking of some of the efforts made 
for more congruous stage appointments, says : " The honest King of 
Scotland, who used to dress for market and theatre at the same time, and 
wear with his kelt and plaid his half boots and black breeches, looking 
half king, half cobbler, has been obliged totally to dismiss the former from 
his royal service ; yet I am happy to find, so obstinate is his attachment 
to old habits, that all their efforts have not been sufficient to dislodge him 
from the strong hold he has in the latter. They may force him from 
the boots — but nothing shall drive him out of the breeches." 



151 

in America was short, but filled with unprecedented triumphs 
that were lessened only by his own weakness in giving himself 
up to his evil habits. His acting, the first of a preeminent 
artist that America had seen,^^ left its impress on this country 
for many years. Fennell, the leading actor here at the time, 
modified his method after seeing the great English actor, and 
others made him the subject of minute imitation. Among 
these John Duff was the best known, his Richard being " so 
closely after the manner of Cooke, as to require the keenest 
scrutiny to detect a variation " ; and the " extraordinary imita- 
tion of Cooke " by a certain Mr. Bibly is also recorded.*^ 

The coming of Cooke to America in 1810, prepared the way 
for the greater Edmund Kean, whose first visit occurred in 
1820. He opened his engagement with " Richard the Third " 
as had Cooke, and it was his important role during this and 
his later visit in 1825.** There seems little to add to what has 
already been said concerning Kean in his English career. His 
visits are important chiefly because of the indication they give 
of the attractions of an American engagement, and his influ- 
ence here seems not to have been so widespread as that of 
Cooke or particularly of Booth. The American records of his 
successes differ quite markedly in tone from those written on 
the other side of the Atlantic, for here an offensive attitude 
later dubbed " a certain condescension in foreigners," was 
noticed and resented. 

Between Kean's first and second visits his great imitator, 

*^A detailed description of Cooke's Richard the Third is given in 
Memoirs of the Life of George Frederick Cooke, Esquire, Late of the 
Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, by William Dunlap, New York, 1813, Vol. 
II, pages 391-4. Cooke was the first of the great English "stars" to cross 
the Atlantic. The Park Theatre managers tried to induce John Kemble 
and Mrs. Siddons to come to America for an engagement, but the dread 
of the ocean voyage overruled any attractions that might attend an 
American tour. 

^^ Ireland, op. cit,. Vol. I, pages 297 and 308. 

^ In connection with Kean's opening appearance as Richard at the Park, 
on his second visit, one of the worst riots in our history occurred, because 
of the resentment of his conduct in Boston in 1821. See T. A. Brown, 
op. cit., Vol. I, pages 27-8. 



152 

or as some of his biographers would have it, his great double,*^ 
Junius Brutus Booth, came to America. His first appearance 
was on October 5, 1821, in the New Park Theatre, the finest 
one New York had yet had, with a large, commodious stage 
and well illuminated with patent oil-lamps. Booth's initial 
appearance was in " Richard the Third," a part he constantly 
used until the end of his career thirty years later. His Rich- 
ard needs few words of description,^*' for it was a wonderfully 
close counterpart of Kean's in general method and in detail, 
though according to contemporary witnesses, with greater 
emphasis upon what was terrible in the character rather than 
upon its pathetic possibilities. Booth was for years without a 
rival, and " the little lunatic giant of the stage," with his im- 
passioned manner, overwrought emotions and awe-striking 
impersonations seemed to appeal to the American audience in 
a greater degree than did the undoubtedly more subtle inter- 
pretation of Kean.*'' 

An explanation of this may be found in the career of Edwin 
Forrest, the first great native actor of America, whose appear- 
ance as " Richard the Third "*^ took place on January 23, 
1827, at the Bowery Theatre.*^ Forrest's interpretations, as 
did Cooke's and Booth's, emphasized the darker and more ter- 

*^ Notably in The Elder and Younger Booth, by Asia Booth Clarke, Bos- 
ton, 1882. 

■'^An analysis of Booth's Richard is given in The Tragedian ; An Essay 
on the Histrionic Genius of Junius Brutus Booth, by Thomas R. Gould. 
New York, 1868. 

" A thrilling account was given by Count Joannes (George Jones) to 
T. A. Brown, who reports it in his History of the New York Stage (Vol. 
I, page 108), of a real fight between himself and Booth when he was 
playing Richmond to the latter's Richard. Booth, intoxicated and half 
insane, thinking himself a real Richard, made a savage attempt to kill his 
enemy. The audience, believing it to be excellent acting, applauded 
enthusiastically. It was only when Booth, exhausted and half fainting, 
was pinioned to the floor, that the play could end with some appearance 
of order. 

** Forrest had played Richmond to Kean's Richard during the latter's 
second visit to America in 1825. 

*° This was a new house at the time, and notable in our stage annals 
as making the first experiment in American theatres in lighting with gas, 
a most important innovation in regard to stage setting. 



153 

rible aspects of character. It was a time when America was 
not entirely freed from the crudity of the colonial period, and 
the actor of popular favor was one whose emotions were violent 
and patent, and who had a genius for making brilliant points, 
rather than for illuminating every part of the character. But 
while Forrest enjoyed the greatest popularity and gained the 
highest reputation in such a violent part as Metamora, his 
Richard was never greatly in favor. This may have been due 
to his conception of the character. His friend and biographer, 
James Rees (Colley Gibber), says it was an original one, mak- 
ing Richard " towering and lofty, equally impetuous and com- 
manding ... a royal usurper, a princely hypocrite — a tyrant 
and a murderer of the house of Plantagenet." He tells us 
that his idea of Richard's person Forrest took from the por- 
trait in the fifth volume of the " Paston Letters," and from the 
representation of the Countess of Desmond, whose flattering 
description of Richard at a royal party as the handsomest man 
in the room, except his brother, Edward IV, stands in direct 
opposition to the usual descriptions, such as More's.^" His 
justification, he claimed, was based upon historical authority, 
and he refused, when Shakespeare was urged as the final au- 
thority for the stage, to "so distort Richard."^i So in his 
dressing of the part he entirely disregarded the traditional de- 
formity, as he credited Richard with the skill to disguise it. 
Forrest's biographer rather naively avers that, "if he could 
have impressed his audience with the same idea he had of it, we 
should have had an American actor to claim the honor of being 
the best that ever trod the stage."^^ j^ jg certainly of interest 
to find that the princely conception does, in some measure, anti- 
cipate the later ideas of Irving and Edwin Booth, a conception, 
however, which required a more complex psychology than 

^^ The Life of Edwin Forrest. With Reminiscences and Personal Recol- 
lections. Philadelphia (1874), pages 252-4. 

" This is curiously based on the assumpton that Richard is " the only- 
one who descants upon his personal defects." A reference to the speeches 
of Margaret .or Anne, it would seem, would have disproved this. 

°- Rees, op. cit., page 256. 



154 

Forrest's to make convincing.^^ The Edwin Forrest edition 
of " Richard the Third,"^* for he had his own version of the 
Gibber text, shows few changes from the original, except fre- 
quent omission of Hnes, the introduction of the four from 
Shakespeare at the beginning of the opening sohloquy, adopted 
by most performers at this time, and the retention of Rich- 
mond's prayer in the tent scene, and of a few hnes in the 
wooing scene which were omitted in the original Gibber ver- 
sion. The play ends with Richard's dying speech and a tab- 
leau of soldiers crying " Long live Henry the Seventh, King 
of England ! " 

A new but shortlived interest entered into American theat- 
ricals when Gharles Kean, after first establishing his reputa- 
tion in America in 1830, in the character in which his father 
had been so distinguished, returned in 1846 and gave " Richard 
the Third " in the Park Theatre, " with unexampled magnifi- 
cence of scenery, dresses, armors, banners, equipments and 
properties of every kind, at a cost of ten thousand dollars." 
The first performance was given on January 7, and the play 
ran for three weeks, an unprecedented length in America.^^ 
These performances, elaborate in setting, unequalled in cor- 
rectness and splendor, were a repetition of those already pre- 
sented in London, and have been discussed. The history of 
elaborate staging at this time came to an early end. In 1848, 
Hamblin, the manager of the Park Theatre, used the scenery 
that Kean had left and gave a splendid performance of " Rich- 
ard the Third," acting the leading part himself, but the play, 
in those first days of the extreme popularity of the opera, 
failed to attract. This attempt, aside from exhibiting the 
public preference at the time, has some added interest from 

°^ One of the interesting facts in regard to Forrest's performances is 
that, in 1837, Charlotte Cushman played Queen Elizabeth to his Richard 
at the Park Theatre. See Ireland, op. cit.. Vol, II, page 220. 

^Richard III. No. 5 of the Edwin Forrest Edition of Shakespearian 
Plays. Correctly marked with the kind permission of the Eminent 
Tragedian, from his own prompt-book, and as acted by him at Niblo's 
Garden, N. Y. Under the Management of James M. Nixon, Esq. (No 
date). New York. 

^° Ireland, op. cit., page 450. 



155 

the fact that it was the last tragedy performed in the Park 
Theatre, for, a few days after, the theatre was destroyed by 
fire, and with it all of the properties that had given to America 
the first example of gorgeous staging.^® 

During the first fifty years or so of the nineteenth century, 
accompanying this succession of English luminaries upon our 
stage, such a grotesque procession of youthful prodigies and 
incongruous histrions makes its appearance, that it seems 
worth while to give some attention to this curious and, in some 
respects, significant chapter in our stage annals. While the 
history of the youthful prodigy in America may be said to 
date from the performances of John Howard Payne," the first 
recorded appearance of a boy Richard is in January, 1821, 
when Master George Frederick Smith, a boy of eleven years, 
after playing Young Norval in Home's " Douglas," essayed 
this part. He seems to have had only a measurable success, 
for Ireland records that he was " somewhat attractive for a 
few nights ; "^^ but he was brought forward again in March, 
1822. In 183 1, we hear of a little son of Mrs. Jones, an 
actress, introduced on the stage at The Bowery as a prodigy 
in " Richard the Third," but quite decidedly disappointing his 
mother's hopes.^^ Master Joseph Burke, eleven years of age, 
acted Richard so well that " none sneered at the absurdity of 
a child's assuming such parts."^*' Master Mangeon's perform- 
ance at The Bowery on June 7, 1832, had " some boyish 
merit,"^^ and we find the mention of a Master Bowers from 

^''The Park Theatre burned down December i6, 1848. With it went 
the last vestige of the old American Company, which first appeared at the 
Nassau Street Theatre in 1753. Ireland, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 525-6. 

" The only native American of celebrity on the stage until the appearance 
of Forrest. He made his first entry in 1809, at the age of seventeen, as 
young Norval. 

^* Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 373. 

^^ Ditto, page 506. 

'^ Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 642. He made his debut in Cork as 
Tom Thumb when five years of age. For his remarkable performances 
in drama and music, see Hutton, Curiosities of the American Stage, pages 
229-230. 

^^ Ditto, Vol. II, page 23. 



156 

Philadelphia at the Park Theatre in June, 1834.®- Stranger 
still, it was a part assumed by tiny heroines. The " infant 
wonder " of 1838 was Miss J. M. Davenport, aged eleven 
years, who played Richard to her mother's Queen Elizabeth. 
Probably the most youthful Richard on record is one of the 
famous Bateman sisters, Ellen, who when four years of age, 
played this part, her sister Kate, two years older, taking the 
part of Richmond. This remarkable exhibition took place on 
December 10, 1849, ^.t the Broadway Theatre.^^ 

During these years several women made some reputation in 
the character. In 1827, at The Bowery, Mr. and Mrs. H. A, 
Williams gave a performance in which Mrs. Williams took the 
part of Richard and her husband played Richmond. A Mrs. 
Herring, who played Queen Elizabeth to Booth's Richard in 
1833, appeared in the title role on June 27, 1835, and was said 
to have shown " a force and vigor truly astonishing."^* A 
few years after, Mrs. Pritchard, an actress " with the taint of 
the Ring attached to her," performed Richard in an appro- 
priately " spirited " manner. In 1836, Mrs. H. Lewis opened 
her season at the Park Theatre as Richard the Third, and 
later her engagement at the Franklin Theatre as star with the 
same part. Annie Hathaway and Fanny Herring played Rich- 
ard and Richmond together in 1860,*^^ and the Batemans in 
1 86 1 repeated at the Astor Place Theatre the characters which 
they had played as children. 

" Richard the Third " seems to have lent itself to all kinds 
of theatrical ventures. As in London it had been given at 
Astley's as a, circus attraction,^" so at the Bowery Theatre in 

'^ Ditto, page 114. 

^ Clara Fisher, called " a Kean in miniature," is about the first of whom 
we have any record as figuring in Richard the Third, but her juvenile 
efforts were confined to England, where, when she was six years old, she 
appeared in a burlesque masque called Lord Flinnip, introducing the fifth 
act of Richard the Third. Ireland, op. cit.. Vol. II, page 536. 

^* Ireland, op. cit.. Vol. II, page 88. 

"^ T. A. Brown, op. cit.. Vol. I, page 336. 

*®A spirited defence of such a setting for the dramas of Shakespeare 
appears in a letter of Thomas Wooler, a manager, to EUiston of Drury 
Lane, in 1833, where he writes: "What think you of mounting Shake- 



157 

1840, Charles Mason used the battle scene of Act V to exhibit 
an equestrian performance. The versatile Charlotte Crampton 
played Richard at the Chatham Theatre and in the last act 
performed wonderful feats with her trained horses. Later in 
a benefit at the New Bowery Theatre in 1862, Richard is pre- 
sented on horse-back in the battle scene by Harry Seymour, 
and the device found favor in subsequent performances. This 
play was used in many an eccentric attempt, such as that of 
Elder Addams, the Mormon preacher-actor, who gave a 
strange exhibition on November 29 and 30, 1847, at the Bow- 
ery Theatre, or the ridiculous feats of Count Joannes, well- 
known to the New York stage forty years ago, or of Dr. 
Landis from Philadelphia with his imaginary company,^^ 
which closed the history of theatrical performances in Tam- 
many Theatre. As early as 1866, at the Neu Stadt, " Richard 
the Third " was on the boards of a German theatre, and it 
remained in the repertoire of the Bowery Theatre when it was 
opened as a German house in 1879, and called The Thalia. 
Here Herr Possard played Richard on January 7 and March 
7, 1888. 

Here, as in England, apt imitators saw a ready field, and we 
find James H. Hackett giving imitations of Kean's Richard 
and T. McCutcheon of J. B. Booth's in "The Man About 

speare's heroes, as the bard himself would rejoice they should be? Why 
not allow the wand of Ducrow (the noted equestrian), to aid the representa- 
tion of his dramas, as well as the pencil of Stanfield? 'Saddle White 
Surrey ' in good earnest, and, as from The Surrey you once banished these 
animals, and have taken them up at Drury Lane, think of doing them 
justice. . . . Instead of niggardly furnishing Richard and Richmond with 
armies that do not muster the force of a Serjeant's guard, give them an 
efficient force of horse and foot. . . . Richard should march to the field 
in the full panoply of all your cavalry, and not trudge like a poor pedlar, 
whom no one would dream of ' interrupting in his expedition.' He might 
impressively dismount in compliment to the ladies ; and when in the field 
he cries, ' My kingdom for a horse ! ' the audience might fairly deem such 
a price only a fair offer for the recovery of so noble an animal." Quoted 
by Frost, Circus Life, pages 81-2. 

°' The doctor was on the stage in costume, while the parts of Lady Anne, 
Richmond, and others were read from behind screens, and Richard alone 
" roared and bellowed." T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. Ill, page 87. 



158 

Town." Nor could this play escape the national penchant for 
caricature. In 1842 " Richard Number Three," a musical 
burlesque, appeared at Mitchell's Olympic. Chanfrau, noted 
for his imitations, especially of Forrest, appeared in " Richard 
III in Dutch " in 1869, a comic piece in which the actor Glenn 
had figured at The Bowery four years before. This seem- 
ingly favorite burlesque found its way to the Theatre Comique 
in the same year, where it was acted by Robert McWade. A 
travesty of " Richard the Third," called " Bad Dickey,"*'^ was 
a feature at Tammany Theatre, and was repeated at Union 
Square. As late as 1890, D. L. Morris, the German comedian, 
performed in a burlesque of " Richard the Third " at Koster 
and Bial's.«9 

These peculiar representations are a comment upon the atti- 
tude toward the play and an indication of the theatrical taste 
of the time. They were not confined to the second-class 
theatres, where such entertainments are to be expected, but 
took place even in the venerable Park Theatre, and in The 
Bowery, which in its early days was one of the leading houses 
in New York. They furnish significant evidence of the popu- 
larity of the tragedy, the extreme familiarity of the audiences 
with it, and illustrate the opportunity in the play for striking 
and extraordinary situations, which so easily pass over into 
the grotesque. 

^' The dramatist personce give some idea of its character, thus : Richard, 
Henry King, Bucky Gammon, Richmud, Stand and Lie, Catspaw, Rarcliiife, 
Lieut. Jenkins, Gnawfork, Oxhead, Tarheel, Cuffy, Sally Ann, Mrs. Mc- 
Kween, Dutch Bess of New York. T. A. Brown, op. cit.. Vol. I, page 273. 
Fanny Herring played the comic Richard. 

*' " Legitimate burlesque," according to Mr. Hutton in Curiosities of the 
American Stage, began in United States with the production of John 
Poole's celebrated travesty of Hamlet, one of the earliest of its kind by 
George Holland on March 22, 1828. This led managers to importing, and 
our native authors to writing travesties upon everything in the standard 
drama. So we had burlesques of Anthony and Cleopatra, Douglas, Macbeth, 
Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Manfred, The Tempest, Richard the Third, and 
many others. These were at the height of popularity between 1839 and 
1859. Wm, Mitchell was the leading man in these burlesques, and Richard 
Number Three was one of his famous parts. Later John Brougham was a 
leading American burlesque actor. 



159 

With the appearance of Edwin Booth a new era began in 
the history of this play in America, for our greatest actor gave 
the newer conception of the character of Richard, consonant 
with the later critical study of Shakespeare, and was the first 
to make a successful restoration of the original text to our 
stage. Booth's earliest appearance had been in this play, when 
in 1847 he made his dehut as Tressel to his father's Richard, 
as did all the sons of J. B. Booth in succession.'^" His first 
appearance in New York took place at Burton's Theatre, in 
this play, on May 4, 1857, after his triumphs in the West, 
where his first substantial success had been gained in this part 
at San Francisco in 1852.'''^ 

Edwin Booth's Richard has always been highly praised. It 
was less ferocious, less brutal than his father's, more subtle, 
and illustrated the character not only by throwing the great 
moments of the play into strong relief, but also by a consistent 
illumination of the calmer scenes. As his father's method 
resembled Kean's, and both were modelled on Cooke's, so in 
his earlier interpretations he followed their lead in such terrific 
parts as Richard, Sir Giles Overreach, Pescara, and others. 
As he grew older he discarded most of these, though keeping 
Richard the Third, but to that character giving the finer, 
philosophic cast which distinguished his Hamlet and Richelieu. 
So his king was not a tyrannical ruffian, but a wily, cunning, 
consummate Plantagenet. Here in America we see, there- 
fore, the same transition from the older Kean tradition, as it 
had been somewhat brutalized by Booth and Forrest, to that 
subtler conception of Irving. He dressed carefully for the 
part, but his " make up " included " no distortion of limp or 
hump." He is said to have based his idea of the personal 
appearance of Richard upon the portrait in the House of 
Lords, and to have been influenced in his conception of the 
character by Lord Lytton's presentation of Richard in " The 

'"' The tradition of the Booth family in America is comparable to that of 
the Kembles in England. 

" His life in the West had been filled with strange adventures, not least 
among them being his performance of Richard the Third before King 
Kamehameha IV, when in the Sandwich Islands. 



160 

Last of the Barons." The stage business was always care- 
fully arranged, with the utmost precision, even to the charac- 
teristic toying with the ring upon his finger, or the sheathing 
and unsheathing of his dagger. In Booth's interpretation the 
emphasis is not upon the historical sources, but upon the poetic 
conception as given by Shakespeare.^^ The return to history 
had begun with Kemble ; it is only the later nineteenth century 
actors that conceived the idea of going to the original author 
for their inspiration for the part. 

Before considering Booth's restoration of the original form 
of the play, a word must be said about a similar attempt which 
preceded it. In 1871 the managers of Niblo's Garden adver- 
tised " a grand Shakespearian revival, in the performance of 
the tragedy of Richard III, with an ensemble of cast, scenery 
and accessories such as has never been attempted in this coun- 
try." They announced that " for months preparations have 
been making in Europe, and are now being completed here, 
for the production of this great historical play, on a scale 
worthy its immortal fame," in order to make this " not only 
a great dramatic success, but an incident marking an epoch in 
the history of the American stage." In regard to the text, 
although confessing that " some important modifications and 
certain excisions " of the original had been made, they averred 
that they had entirely disregarded the Gibber version. T. A. 
Brown, evidently from extra-information, says that the text 
was " reconstructed " by Gharles A. Galvert,'^^ that disciple of 
Phelps, who for so many years carried on in Manchester a 
work similar to that of Sadler's Wells. The music was " in 
the main founded on Old English melodies popular at the 
time." The chief actor, James Bennet, brought from England 
for the occasion, was to appear on horseback, and all was to 
be the most elaborate and the most correct ever seen in Amer- 
ica.'^* But in spite of the enthusiasm of the advertiser, and 

''^ For a discussion of Edwin Booth's acting, see Shadows of the Stage 
and The Life and Art of Edwin Booth, both by Mr. William Winter. 

''^ Op. cit., Vol. II, page 210. 

'* These details were given in a small pamphlet, evidently patterned after 
The Fly-Leaf which used to accompany Charles Kean's elaborate produc- 



161 



the supreme efforts of the managers, the revival did not attract. 
Bennet was distinctly weak, and the text was only partly suc- 
cessful. At the end of a week, Neil Warner was put in Ben- 
net's place, the Gibber text replaced the one that had been so 
carefully prepared, with the addition, however, of the dream 
and murder of Clarence which had made a " hit " ; and the play 
m this form ran for three weeks. Even Count Joannes who 
was the attraction for the last night of the four weeks' run 
scored a success! The history of this attempt resembles that 
of similar attempts in England; Phelps returned to the Cibber 
form, and Macready's adaptation was played but one night 
This revival seems to have been undertaken primarily for the 
sake of the novelty gained by extraordinary setting, and by the 
use of the original text as something hitherto unattempted 
here, rather than for the sake of making a serious appeal for 
the rehabilitation of the Shakespearian form, in and for itself 
At this time Booth was still using the Cibber form of the 
play, and continued to do so until 1878, when as the opening 
performance of the season at his own theatre,^^ he introduced 
his adaptation of the original. It ran successfully for two 
weeks, marking an epoch in the history of the play in America 
as did irving's revival of " Richard the Third " the year before 
at The Lyceum, London. 

The editor of the Edwin Booth version of " Richard the 
Third," Mr. William Winter, summarizes the changes made 
by the adaptor thus : 

"Changes of the original have been made, in both the arrangement of 
the scenes and the distribution of the text. Portions of the original have 
been om.tted The portions retained, however, have been taken from the 
ongmal and from no other source. The text has been but slightly altered, 
and that in only a few places. No new material has been introduced." 

To see how it differs from other adaptations, we may note 
briefly the changes in successive acts and scenes. 

clrShiV" ' '"'f',* °' '"''°"'"' "^^ ^^^^"' ^"^°"^ ^^^- --e Ameri- 
can Shakespearian scholars, as R. G. White and others 

-Booth's Theatre was situated on the southeast corner of Sixth Avenue 

and Twenty-third Street. It burned down in 1883. To preservlth 

memory of this noted play-house, a bust of Shakespeare has been placed 

in the front of the building now occupying the site 

12 



162 

Act I, Scene i. — The Hastings episode is cut out; otherwise 
the scene is merely shortened, and concludes with the wooing 
of Anne. 

Scene 2. — Richard's soliloquy. Located in " another street." 

Scene j. — Scene of the quarreling nobles, i. e., the same as 
in Shakespeare. The first act ends at this point. 

Act 11. — The dream and murder of Clarence. 

Act III, Scene i. — This opens with the reconciliation of the 
nobles and the Queen about the sick-bed of the King, gives 
a few lines of the lamenting scene, and closes with Richard's 
preparation for testing the attitude of Hastings. The epic 
scenes in Shakespeare, Act II, Scenes 3 and 4, and Act III, 
Scene i, the entry of the young king into London, are omitted. 

Scenes 2 and j. — The testing of Hastings by Catesby, and 
his indictment and condemnation by Richard, closing with the 
picture of the consternation in the Council Room after Rich- 
ard's outburst. The intervening scenes are omitted. 

Act IV. — The scene at Baynard Castle, considerably short- 
ened. 

Act. V. — This corresponds in general with Act IV in the 
Shakespearian text, though with much shortening, and the 
omission of the scene of the women lamenting before the 
Tower, and the short scene at Lord Derby's house. 

Act VI. — Shakespeare's Act V becomes the sixth act in 
Booth's arrangement, and coincides practically with it. The 
first scene is omitted, and there is considerable rearrangement 
of the later scenes and lines. The play ends with the fall of 
Richard.^^ 

Comparing this with Irving's adaptation of practically the 
same date, it is seen that the American adaptor has taken 
greater liberties with the text. Irving's changes consisted in 
omitting certain scenes, for the most part epic in character, in 
shortening such parts as those of Queen Margaret and Queen 
Elizabeth, and in eliminating Richmond's part in the ghost 
scene, as in the Cibber version. None of the characters are 
omitted except the very unimportant ones of Clarence's chil- 

'^^ Shakespeare's Tragedy of King Richard III, As Presented by Edwin 
Booth. Edited by William Winter. New York, 1878. 



163 

dren. Booth, on the other hand, has cut out thirteen of the 
thirty-seven characters, among these the princes, the latter a 
most radical change both from Shakespeare and from the 
version to which the public was most accustomed; he has 
made a materially different division of acts and scenes to bring 
into prominence the episodes connected with Clarence and 
Hastings, scenes which in former restorations had proved the 
most successful ones ; he has preserved almost in its entirety 
the archaic figure of Queen Margaret, and the appearance of 
the ghosts both to Richard and Richmond.'^^ While both have 
cut down the play to nearly half its length, Booth omits the 
greater number of lines,'^® and takes more liberty in shifting 
and rearranging. Booth's adaptation was successful, but as 
in the case of Irving's, was not generally adopted.'^'' It seems 
to be only a master interpretation such as Irving or Booth 
gave, that has been able to make the poetry of Shakespeare pre- 
ferred on the stage to the theatrical possibilities of the Gibber 
version. 

The staging of this play marked a distinct advance, but 
rather in permanent theatrical appliances than in any unusual 
gorgeousness of setting such as had characterized the " restora- 
tion " at Niblo's Garden. According to a writer of 1870, who 
describes Booth's Theatre, this was the first house in America 
to use the modern arrangement of side wings placed obliquely 
to the spectator.^" This gives the illusion of distance and great 
spaciousness, as the older employment of flat wings could not, 
necessary for the best effects in such a play as " Richard the 

" Such an arrangement, a simple matter on the Elizabethan stage, as we 
have seen, here brings into requisition the most elaborate contrivances of 
scenery and lighting. The stage directions read : " After a few vivid 
flashes of light the scene becomes illuminated and shows the ghosts and 
the distant tents of Richmond." 

™ Irving omits 143S lines, Booth 1558. 

'" Booth himself seems to have felt little satisfaction in his success, 
according to the report which Professor Brander Matthews, of Columbia 
University, gives of a conversation with him. He told Professor Matthews 
that he had made a mistake in taking up Shakespeare in preference to 
Cibber as the latter was a better acting play. 

^"Booth's Theatre; Behind the Scenes, Appleton's Journal, 1870. 



164 

Third." In costuming, properties, and setting, Booth's Theatre 
stood for perfection, and was the direct forerunner of the best 
equipped New York theatres of to-day. With the performance 
of this version during Booth's Hfe-time we close the history 
of the play in America. 

Little need be said of Booth's contemporaries in this part. 
His brother, Wilkes Booth, of lamentable fame, played Richard 
with all the ferocity and verve of his father.*^ A description 
of his performance shows perhaps the most extreme develop- 
ment of the older conception among the younger actors. It 
is given by T. A. Brown, in his " History of the New York 
Stage," thus : 

" As Richard he was different from all other tragedians. He imitated 
no one, but struck out into a path of his own, introducing points which 
older actors would not dare to attempt. In the last act he was truly- 
original, particularly where the battle commences. With most tragedians 
it is the custom to rush on the stage, while the fight is going on, looking as 
if dressed for court. Wilkes Booth made a terrible feature of this part 
of the performance. He would dart across the stage as if he ' meant 
business ' ; then again he would appear ' seeking for Richmond in the 
throat of death.' His face was covered with blood from wounds supposed 
to have been received in slaying those five other Richmonds he refers to ; 
his beaver was lost in the fray, his hair flying helter skelter, his clothes 
all torn, and he panted and fumed like a prize fighter. In this character 
he was more terribly real than any other actor I ever saw."*" 

The Wallacks, Lawrence Barrett, John McCullough, J. W. 
Keene, all rose to respectable eminence in the part, but noth- 
ing of note marks their performances. The Gibber text was 
used by these actors, and the traditional lines in interpretation 
seem to have been followed. Not until Richard Mansfield 
appeared, did we have a fresh conception, or a new version, 
this time a compromise between Shakespeare and Cibber.^^ 

The history of " Richard the Third " in America, aside from 
the excesses and incongruities which have at times marked its 

*^ A story similar to that told of Count Joannes and the elder Booth, 
is recounted of Wilkes Booth when he was acting Richard with Tilton, and 
became so infuriated that he drove him over the footlights, 

^^Vol. I, page 510. 

^ This is described in Mr. Winter's Shadows of the Stage, in the chapter 
on Richard Mansfield as Richard the Third. 



165 

production, is not without a sober interest. The frequency of 
its telHng situations, the patent quality of its emotions, the pos- 
sibihty of adequate representation with small means, which 
adapted it to the crudest conditions and made it a favorite with 
strolling companies in England, assured its success in the barn- 
like theatres and with the provincial audiences of early 
America, So we find it first among tragic representations 
here, and later, as in England, holding a prominent place 
throughout the history of our stage. It is significant that, 
with the appearance of great American actors, we have dis- 
tinct innovations; Forrest introduced an individual concep- 
tion counter to that holding the stage at the time but later 
realized by a great actor ; Booth an adaptation and successful 
restoration of the Shakespearian text. In staging and general 
conception of the part, America has throughout reflected the 
conditions in England, as it has constantly induced the actors 
from that country to perform here. But, on the other hand, 
America has sent Forrest and Booth to England, and both 
were welcomed as of the great ones. The present situation in 
America is as it is in England in regard to this play; the 
struggle for the " Richard the Third " of Shakespeare is still 
"on," and until others as great as Booth appear to confirm 
his work, it seems likely to continue. 



VII 

Conclusion 

At the end of the long history of this play, a few words 
should be said in conclusion. We have noted the character of 
Shakespeare's " Richard the Third " as showing within it the 
marks of the three great influences of the early Elizabethan 
period, the chronicle, the tragedy of Marlowe, and the revenge 
play of Kyd; we have found in its presentation traces of the 
popular drama as well as the use of the typical devices of the 
Elizabethan stage, although it seems to have been markedly 
free from such elaborate effects as are suggested by the direc- 
tions in many of the plays of the period; we have seen that 
during the Restoration another play on the subject, showing all 
the characteristics of the heroic tragedy and the changed con- 
ditions of staging, took its place, and influenced the later ap- 
pearance of Shakespeare's play. With the version of " Richard 
the Third " by Colley Gibber, we find it entering upon its mod- 
ern era, and see in its revision an effort to replace the archaic 
elements of the original by the correspondingly popular devices 
of the eighteenth century stage. We have shown that for 
one hundred and fifty years this play held the stage undisputed, 
long after the other dramas of Shakespeare had been finally 
" restored," and that the last thirty years of its history have 
been marked by a struggle between the original and the re- 
vision, a struggle which is not yet at an end. 

But what is most striking in the history of this play is the 
evidence which it gives of the perennial interest in the villain- 
type. Shakespeare's " Richard the Third " was preceded by 
a line of villain plays, which helped to fix the character, and 
to connect with it certain attributes which it has always re- 
tained. In " Cambyses," as well as in " Richardus Tertius " 
and " The True Tragedy," we find evidences of a growing 
conception of the villain, which affected the later productions. 

166 



167 

With the appearance of Marlowe's MachiaveHan heroes, and 
of Kyd's vengeful types, new elements were added. That 
Richard was an historical personage had little effect upon the 
development of this hero, for he had already been converted 
into a saga figure, and it was to this that Shakespeare turned. 
The conception of Richard, while generally permanent, has 
suffered some change as it has been interpreted to the public 
since the Elizabethan age. We have seen that, as the ideas of 
proper tragic form and subject have changed, so this character 
has illustrated new modes of thought, and differing emotional 
reactions upon the central idea of the play. The Elizabethan 
Richard shows far more of the medieval type of the infallible, 
tyrannical despot, with a greater element of bombast and ora- 
torical splutter than do the later Richards. In the late seven- 
teenth century, we find the hero torn between love and ambi- 
tion, an impossible and uninteresting conception to the earlier 
audience, who wished its villains of purer dye. Again, in the 
eighteenth century, Richard becomes a quieter character, and 
although still oratorical, is less bombastic in the hands of the 
better actors, the older interpretation persisting, however, with 
the second-rate performers. There is here no less brutality, 
nor is there less action, but it is all of a more sardonic cast. 
The nineteenth century we have seen developing the subtler 
side of Richard's villainy, dwelling upon motives, recalling his 
kingly characteristics, and producing a hero of decidedly more 
thoughtful nature. But through all these changes, and indeed 
because of its adaptability to them, the play, ever since the 
days when Queen Elizabeth " was pleased at seeing Henry VII 
in a favorable light," has been unflaggingly attractive, and the 
character of Richard has ever elicited unfailing interest. It is 
true indeed, that Richard the Third has not been the favorite 
role of any great actor since the time of J. B. Booth, but that 
it is not performed so frequently as in the days of Garrick and 
Kean, is to be explained by the same conditions which cause 
the other plays of Shakespeare to appear only occasionally on 
the stage today. 

This interest of the audience in the villain play, in the pre- 
sentation of the unavoidable balking by fate of man's assump- 



168 

tion of unlimited power, in the tremendous dramatic irony of 
the situations, was reinforced from the beginning by the favor 
of the actors for a play that gave an unprecedented oppor- 
tunity for the " star." The part has always been considered of 
extreme difficulty, making enormous demands upon the actor, 
greater than those of Hamlet, lago, or Lear, but at the same 
time, from the " variegated character " of Richard, offering 
great possibilities. Its concentration of interest upon the hero, 
while lessening the advantage of dramatic contrast, has never- 
theless made it a favorite play with actors in all ages. While it 
has lent itself thus, to one of the worst abuses of acting in the 
over-emphasis of the chief character, it has at the same time 
been the touchstone for breadth, subtlety of conception of 
character, and ingenuity in " business," from Burbage to Irv- 
ing. It has, therefore, been a prominent role with every well- 
known actor except Betterton (and he performed the part of 
Richard in "The English Princess"), from the time of its 
original appearance to the present day. 

Perhaps for that reason the history of this play shows 
plainly the succession of schools of acting. From time to 
time, an actor has been hailed as giving a new interpre- 
tation of the part, or as showing a more natural method. So 
the older has been repeatedly outgrown, as it hardened into 
convention or departed from the fresher perception. Bur- 
bage was of a new school; later Garrick reformed the older 
method as it had been preserved in Betterton; Kean reacted 
against the formality of Kemble ; and he was in turn regarded 
as artificial by Irving and Booth. We find a repetition of the 
same problem from generation to generation. Nor has the 
ultimate, natural conception been reached by an Irving or a 
Booth, according to present critics, for the language used in a 
recent review of the acting of Mr. William Mollison of 
London sounds much like that of reviewers in the heyday of the 
older " stars." The writer says of his performance of Richard, 
" not only is it entirely new alike in fact and spirit, but it does 
an enormous deal toward making that sinister personage a 
really feasible, appealing character for a modern audience." 
He describes the actor's idea of Richard as " a preferably 



169 

understandable man of action, a truculent, brisk, hustling, ag- 
gressive fellow, hard as nails, of enormous vigor and per- 
sonality, and a grim, rough humor." He speaks of the woo- 
ing of Anne and the parleying with Margaret as displaying a 
Richard " delightfully humorous, gay, insolent, aggressive, full 
of the right 'alacrity. of spirit and cheer of mind.'" And 
as has been said of great actors before him, we find that 
" the way Mr. Mollison thundered out the ' White-livered 
runagate, what doth he there ? ' made the whole audience hold 
its breath." 

That "Richard the Third" has persisted upon the stage 
in spite of all the changes in theatrical taste, and through re- 
vision into what many have considered a degraded form, is an 
evidence of its dramatic excellence, which under all conditions 
seems to have been unimpaired. The figure of a great, master- 
ful character, untroubled by scruple, unappalled by conscience, 
of supreme intellectual force, working out his ends, regarding 
his fellow-creatures as mere puppets of his will, and at last, 
overtaken by the consequences of his crimes, dying valiantly 
and desperately, has persisted in Gibber's version and in the 
revisions of the Gibber text, as it was in Shakespeare. It is to 
this large conception that audiences and actors have constantly 
turned. It is a play of startling effects, of patent development 
of character, of inevitable situations. While it is still marked 
by the peculiarities of its Elizabethan origin in the figure of 
Margaret, in the very presence of the Marlowean type of hero, 
in the staging, yet the appeal through the universal note of the 
motives, and the reality of the language, especially in the 
speeches of Richard, have assured its everlasting popularity. 

As we have seen, " Richard the Third " contains archaic 
elements which are not found in any other play which has sur- 
vived on the stage, and which have been an effectual bar to its 
" restoration." Thus, it has been possible to " restore " the 
Shakespearian form of " Macbeth " or " King Lear " without 
the violence to modern stage conventions that would have been 
felt in the case of the original form of " Richard the Third." 
On the other hand, since it has been found capable of adapta- 
tion to modern methods, it is the only chronicle play (using 



170 

the term in its narrower significance), that holds the stage 
today. Besides, " Richard the Third," although it re-appeared 
during the vogue of classical canons in tragedy, escaped with 
little mutilation, and was never made into a " regular " play. 
Nor was it violated by such inappropriate transformations as 
disfigured some of the other Shakespearian plays ; as " Mac- 
beth " for instance, by the introduction of music and dancing 
and sirens in the place of the witches ; or " The Tempest " 
when converted into opera; nor did it undergo the conversion 
of tragedy into comedy, as in the case of Tate's " Lear," 
and Howard's " Romeo and Juliet," or suffer the introduction 
of a distinctly romantic element, as in Crowne's " Henry the 
Sixth." The greatest violence to structure consists in its fusion 
with a part of " Henry the Sixth," but this was done by no 
means after the extreme fashion of D'Avenant's " Law against 
Lovers," in which " Measure for Measure " and " Much Ado " 
are forced to come into line. Indeed, it is generally conceded 
that Colley Cibber, while ruthlessly destroying the poetry of 
the play, did make it " fitter for the stage," as he set out to do, 
by concentrating, modernizing, and shortening. 

The career of this play, as we have seen, has been a most 
romantic one. Presented at first by the best company of 
London, and possibly at Court, it became the favorite of 
strolling comedians, inaugurated the Shakespearian drama in 
America in primitive colonial structures, was played for Chero- 
kee Indians, before the Hawaiian king, in German-American 
theatres, under the guise of " moral lectures," as travesty, 
burlesque, circus attraction, by children's and by women's 
companies. It has been depended upon for benefits, has always 
been a favorite as a first performance ; it has figured in some 
of the greatest theatrical triumphs, and some of the most inter- 
esting events of stage history have centered about it. It has 
been the object of ambition for every aspirant to histrionic 
fame, and has probably launched a greater number of actors 
upon their careers than any other play. 

Looked at from a larger point of view, this play is of inter- 
est, not only from the side of popular taste, but from the side 
of general social devolopment. Its humor bespeaks an age of 



171 

cruder sensibilities, as is seen in the evident delight in de- 
formity in the original presentation. The ignoring or soften- 
ing of Richard's ugliness in later interpretations has a far- 
reaching significance. The appreciation, also, of the com- 
plexity of this character in the latest portrayals shows an 
advance in the conception of the nature of evil, when com- 
pared with the unshaded villainy of the earlier Richards. 

It was pointed out by Schlegel long ago and has been often 
repeated, that the dramas of Shakespeare take the place of a 
national epic in English literature. In such an epic Richard 
the Third gathers about him the racial conception of what is 
consummately evil. And so the conception of Richard has 
become engrafted within the ideals of our dramatic literature 
in a peculiar manner, as a persistent habit of thought, to which 
we are constantly attracted by its long line of associations or 
by the tradition of its perennial appeal. And, as about the 
character and the play certain ideals of the villain and of the 
tragic have clustered from the earliest days of English drama, 
it still today retains a real significance and lends itself con- 
stantly to newer and wider application and adaptation. 



VIII 

Bibliography 

Anonymous. Elizabethan Stage Theories. Littell's Living 
Age, Vol. 247 (1905). 
The Dramatic Censor; or Critical Companion. 2 vols. 
London, 1770. Essay on Richard the Third, as 
Altered from Shakespeare by Cibber. 
The Laureate ; or the right side of C. C. ; containing ex- 
planations, amendments, observations, on a book, 
entitled : " An Apology for the life . . .," etc. Lon- 
don, 1740. 
The Life and Times of that Excellent and Renowned 
Actor, Thomas Betterton, etc. London, 1888. 

Albright, Victor E. A Typical Shaksperian Stage: The 
Outer-Inner Stage. New York, 1908. 

American Historical Record, March, 1872. 

Appleton's Journal, 1870. Booth's Theatre; Behind the 
Scenes. 

Archer, William. William Charles Macready. London, 
1890. 
The EHzabethan Stage. Quarterly Review, April, 1908. 

Aston, Anthony. A Brief Supplement to Colley Cibber, 
Esq. ; his Lives of the late famous Actors and Ac- 
tresses. Reprinted in Lowe's edition of Cibber's 
Apology. 

Baker, D. E., Reed, I., and Jones, S. Biographia Dramatica. 
A Companion to the Playhouse, etc, 3 vols. Lon- 
don, 1812. 

Baker, G. P. The Development of Shakespeare as a Drama- 
tist. New York, 1907. 

Baker, H. Barton. History of the London Stage and its 
Famous Players. London, 1904. 
Our Old Actors. 2 vols. London, 1878. 

172 



173 

Bankside Shakespeare. Edited by Appleton Morgan. The 

Shakespeare Society of New York, 1888-. 
Bernard, Bayle. Early Days of the American Stage. Tal- 

Hs' Dramatic Magazine, 1850. 
Bernard, John. Retrospections of America, 1797-1811. 

New York, 1887. 
Boaden, James. Memoirs of the Life of John Phihp Kemble, 

Esq. Including a History of the Stage, from the 

time of Garrick to the present period. London, 1825. 
Booth, Edwin. Richard the Third. The Prompt Book. 

Edited by WilHam Winter. New York, 1878. 
Brandl, A. Introduction to Schlegel-Tieck Shakespeare. 
Brodmeier, C. Die Shakespeare-Biihne nach den alten Biih- 

nenanweisungen. Weimar, 1904. 
Brown, T. A. A History of the New York Stage, from the 

First Performances in 1732 to 1901. 3 vols. New 

York, 1903. 
Cambridge Shakespeare. Edited by Clark and Wright. 

Third ed., 1891. 
Chase, L. N. The English Heroic Play. New York, 1903. 
Churchill, G. B. Richard the Third up to Shakespeare. 

Berlin, 1900. 
Cibber, Colley. An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber 

by Himself. Edited by R. W. Lowe. London, 1889. 

2 vols. 
The Dramatic Works. 4 vols. London, 1760. 
Clarke, Asia Booth. The Elder and Younger Booth. Bos- 
ton, 1882. 
Cole, J. W. The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean, 

F.S.A. 2 vols. London, 1859. 
Collier, J. P. The History of English Dramatic Poetry. 

Three parts. London, 1831. 
Corbin, J. Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage. Atlantic 

Monthly, March, 1906. 
The EHzabethan Hamlet. New York, 1895. 
Coryat, Thomas. Coryat's Crudities. 3 vols. London, 

1776. 



174 

Courthope, W. J. A History of English Poetry. 4 vols. 

New York, 1895. 
Cunliffe, J. W. The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan 

Tragedy. Manchester, 1893. 
Davies, Thos. Dramatic Miscellanies. 3 vols. London, 

1785... 

Delius, N. Uber das Englische Theatrewesen zu Shakspere's 
Zeit. Bonn, 1853. 

Dohse, R. Colley Gibber's Biihnenbearbeitung von Shakes- 
peare's Richard III. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik, 
Vol. II. 1899. 

Doran. " Their Majesties Servants." 2 vols. New York, 
1880. 

Downes, J. Roscius Anglicanus, or an Historical Review of 
the Stage from 1660 to 1706. A Fac-simile Reprint 
of the Rare Original of 1708. With an Historical 
Preface by Joseph Knight. London, 1886. 

Dunlap, William. A History of the American Theatre. 
New York, 1832. 

Edwin Forrest Edition of Shakespearian Plays. No. 5. 
Richard HI. Correctly marked . , . from his own 
prompt-book, and as acted by him at Niblo's Garden. 
New York. No date. 

Eversley Shakespeare. Edited by G. H. Herford. 10 vols. 
1902. 

Fennell, J. Apology for His Life. Philadelphia, 1814. 

Fleay, F. G. A Biographical Ghronicle of the English Drama, 
1559-1642. London, 1891. 2 vols. 
A Ghronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642. 

1890. 
Life of Shakespeare. 1886. 

Fitzgerald, P. A New History of the English Stage from 
the Restoration to the Liberty of the Theatres, in 
Connection with the Patent Houses. 2 vols. Lon- 
don, 1882. 
The Life of Garrick. 2 vols. London, i^ 
The Kembles. 2 vols. London, 1871. 



175 

Frost, T. Circus Life and Circus Celebrities. London, 1875. 
The Old Showmen and the Old London Fairs. London, 

1874. 
Furness, Horace Howard, Jr. A New Variorum Edition of 

Shakespeare. The Tragedy of Richard the Third. 

Philadelphia, 1908. 
Genee, R. von. Uber die schenischen Formen Shakespeare's 

in ihrem Verhaltniss zur Biihne seiner Zeit. Shak. 

Jahrbuch, Vol. 26. 
Genest, J. Some Account of the English Stage from 1660 to 

1830. 10 vols. Bath, 1832. 
Gildersleeve, V. C. Governmental Regulation of the Shakes- 
pearean Drama. New York, 1908. 
Gildon, C. The Life of Mr. Thomas Betterton, the late emi- 
nent Tragedian. London, 1710. 
Gould, T. R. The Tragedian; An Essay on the Histrionic 

Genius of Booth. New York, 1868. 
Greg, W. W. Henslowe's Diary. London, 1904. Part I. 

Text. 
Griggs, W. Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles. Richard the 

Third. 
Hale, E. E., Jr. The Influence of the Theatrical Conditions 

on Shakespeare. Modern Philology, Vol. I (1903). 
Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. Outlines of the Life of Shakes- 
peare. 6th ed., 1886. 
Haslewood, J. The Secret History of the Green Room, etc. 

2 vols. London, 1793. 
Hazlitt, Wm. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. Lectures 

on the Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth. 

London, 1848. 
Henry Irving Shakespeare. Edited by Henry Irving and 

F. A. Marshall. 8 vols. New York, 1888-90. 
Hentzner, P. A Journey into England, in the Year 

MDXCVIII. Edited by Horace Walpole. 1757. 
Heywood, Thos. An Apology for Actors. Reprinted from 

the edition of 161 2 for the Shakespeare Society. 

London, 1841. 



176 

Hodgkinson, J. A Narrative of his Connection with the Old 

American Company. From the Fifth of September, 

1792, to the Thirty- First of March, 1797. New 

York, 1797. 
Hubbard, F. G. Repetition and Parallehsm in Earher EHza- 

bethan Drama. Modern Lang. Asso. Pub. 1905. 
Hunt, Leigh. The Examiner. 
Hutton, R. Curiosities of the American Stage. New York, 

1891. 
Inchbald, E. The British Theatre. Richard the Third, Vol. 

17. London, 1806-9. 
Ireland, J. N. Records of the New York Stage from 1750 to 

i860. 2 vols. New York, 1866. 
Irving, H. B. The English Stage in the Eighteenth Century. 

Fortnightly Review, Vols. 85 and 86 (1906). 
Kilian, E. Die scenischen Formen Shakespeare's in ihrem 

Verhaltniss zur Biihne seiner Zeit. Jahrbuch, Vol. 

28. 
Shakespeare auf der Modernen Biihne. Shak. Jahrbuch, 

Vol. 36. 
Knight, J. Life of Gar rick. London, 1894. 
Lamb, C. On the Tragedies of Shakespeare. London, 1855. 
Lawrence, W. J. A Forgotten Stage Conventionality. An- 

gha. Vol. 26 (1903). 
Pioneers of Modern English Stage Mounting. Magazine 

of Art, Vol. 18. 
Stage Scenery in the Eighteenth Century. Magazine of 

Art, Vol. 18. 
Some Characteristics of the Elizabethan Stuart Stage. 

Enghsche Studien, Vol. 32 (1902). 
Music in the Elizabethan Theatre. Shakespeare Jahr- 
buch, Vol. 44 (1908). 
Lacy. Acting Edition of Plays. Vol. 13, Richard IIL 
Lee, Sidney. The Life of Shakespeare. 1898. 
Lewes, G. H. On Actors and the Art of Acting. New 

York, 1880. 
Lowe, R. Thomas Betterton. New York, 1891. 



177 

Lounsbury, T. R. Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. New 

York, 1902. 
Lowell, J. R. Shakespeare's Richard the Third. In Latest 

Literary Essays and Addresses. 1892. 
Macready, W. C. Reminiscences. Edited by Sir Frederick 

Pollock. New York, 1875. 
Malone, E. Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of 

the English Stage. Vol. Ill of Edition of Shake- 
speare's Works, 1790. 
Manningham, J. Diary. Edited by J. Bruce. Camden 

Society Pub., Vol. 99. 
Mantzius, K. The History of Theatric Art. 3 vols. 1904. 
Meyer, E. Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama. Literar- 

historische Forschungen, Vol. I. 
MoUoy, J. F. The Life and Adventures of Edmund Kean, 

Tragedian. London, 1888. 
Moorman, F. W. The Pre-Shakespearian Ghost. Shake- 
speare's Ghosts. Modern Lang. Review, 1906. 
Murphy, A. The Life of David Garrick, Esq. Dublin, 1801. 
Ochelhauser, W. Uber Richard III. Shak. Jahrbuch, Vol. 

Ill (1868). 
Ordish, T. F. Early London Theatres. London, 1894. 
Oxberry, W. New English Drama. London, 181 8. Vol. 

Ill, Richard III. 
Pepys, S. Diary. Edited by H, B. Wheatley. London, 

1896. 
Phelps, W. M., and Forbes-Robertson, J. The Life and 

Life- Work of Samuel Phelps. London, 1886. 
Racinet, A. Le Costume Historique. Paris, 1873. 
Rees, J. (CoUey Gibber). The Life of Edwin Forrest. 

Philadelphia, 1874. 
Regel, M. Uber Englisches Theatrewesen zu Shakespeare's 

Zeit. Prague, 1895. 
Reynolds, G. F. Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging. 

Modern Philology, 1905. 
Schelling, F. E. The English Chronicle Play. New York, 

1902. 
13 



178 

Seilhamer, G. O. A History of the American Theatre. 3 

vols. Philadelphia, 1891. 
Spedding, J. On the Corrected Edition of Richard III. 

New Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1875. 
Stoll, E. E. John Webster. Cambridge, 1905. 
Tallis' Dramatic Magazine and General Theatrical and Musi- 
cal Review. New York and London, 1850. 
Thorndike, A. H. The Relations of Hamlet to Contemporary 

Revenge Plays. Pub. Modern Lang. Asso., 1902. 
Introduction to Belle Lettre Series Edition of Beaumont 

and Fletcher's The Maid's Tragedy and Philaster. 

1906. 
Tragedy. 1908. 
Trench, W. F. A Mirror for Magistrates, its origin and 

influence. Edinburgh, 1898. 
Tupper, J. W. The Relation of the Heroic Play to the 

Romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. Pub. Modern 

Lang. Asso., 1905. 
Vincke, G. F. von. Shakespeare auf der Englischen Biihne 

seit Garrick. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Biihnen- 

geschichte. No. 6. 
Wright, J. Historia Histrionica. Reprint in Lowe's edition 

of Gibber's Apology, of the edition of 1699. 
Ward, A. W. A History of English Dramatic Literature to 

the Death of Queen Anne. 3 vols. 1899. 
Wemyss, F. C. Twenty-Six Years of the Life of an Actor 

and Manager. 2 vols. New York, 1847. 
Winter, William. Shadows of the Stage. New York, 1892. 
The Life and Art of Edwin Booth. New York, 1893. 



INDEX. 



The index includes the names of plays, playwrights, actors, theatres 
and companies. 



Adcock, 139; Mrs., 139 

Addams, Elder, 157 

Admiral's Company, 9, 10, i3n, 

i4n, 27 
Aesop, 97n 
Agamemnon, 38n 
Albion Queens, see Island Queens 
Albyon Knight, i2n 
Alchemist, The, 27 
Alleyn, iin 
Allison, Mrs., 94 
Alphonsus of Arragon, i3n, 16, i6n, 

20, 21, 46, 47, 48, sin, 53n, 55, 

S6n. 
American Citizen, The, 146 
American Company, The, 142, 143, 

14s, 146, i46n, 148, issn 
Anatomist, The, 139 
Anthony and Cleopatra, isSn 
Apius and Virginia, 12, i2n 
Arden of Fever sham, i3n 
Anthony Aston, 138 
Apostate, The, 159 
Astley's Amphitheatre, 156 
Astor Place Theatre, 156 
Atkinson, Miss, 126 

Baker, Mrs., 98n 

Bad Dickey, 158, is8n 

Bajaset, gSn 

Baltimore Company, 144 

Banks, 62, 62n, 69 

Barrett, Lawrence, 164 

Barry, 105, 106, io6n; Mrs., 74n, 

92n, losn 
Bartholomew Fair, 3on, 57. 
Bateman, Ellen, 156 
Bateman, Kate, 156 



Battle of Alcazar, The, 3, i3n, i6n, 
20, 21, 29, 36, 51, 55n, 56n 

Beau in the Suds, 136 

Beaumont and Fletcher, 3, 63 

Beauty the Best Advocate {Measure 
for Measure), yyn 

Beaux' Stratagem, The i38n 

Beggar's Bush, The 71 

Bell, 139 

Bellamy, Mrs., 92n 

Bennett, George, 128 

Bennett, James, 160, 161 

Bernard, John, 141, 147, 149 

Betterton, 69n, 72, 74, 77n, 78, 92, 
94, 99, 100, 107, io8n, 168; as 
Richard the Third, 67-8 

Betterton, Mrs., 72 

Betty, ii2n 

Bibly, 151 

Black Prince, The, 62 

Blackfriars Theatre, 94n 

Blakes, 102 

Blue Beard, ii2n 

Boadicea, 62 

Boheme, 98 

Bond, 2sn 

Booth, Barton, 92, 94, 100 

Booth, Edwin, iign, iS2n, 153, 164, 
165, 168; as Richard the Third, 
159—160; version of Richard the 
Third, 161-2; compared with Irv- 
ing's, 162—3 

Booth, J. B., ii9n, 149, 151, 156, 
157, 159, 159", 164, 167; as 
Richard the Third, 118, ii8n; in 
America, 152, iS2n 

Booth, Wilkes, 164, i64n 



179 



180 



Booth's Theatre, i6i, i6in, 163, 

16311, 164 
Bowers, Master, 155 
Bowery Theatre, The, 152, 155, 156, 

157, 158 
Broadway Theatre, The, 156 
Brougham, isSn 
Brunton, Elizabeth, 14711 
Buckingham, 8, 10 
Bunn, Mrs., 124 
Burbage, 3, 311, 4, 25, 31, 5211, 67, 

168 
Burke, Master, 155, issn 
Burton's Theatre, 159 
Bussy D'Ambois, 25n 
Busybody, The, i37n, 143 

Cambyses, 12, i2n, 13, 34, 37, 38, 
166 

Captives, 48 

Carey, ii3n 

Caryll (or Carrol), 60, 62, 68, 78 

Castle Garden, i38n 

Catherine and Petruchio, i4on 

Cato, i37n 

Centlivre, Mrs., 143 

Chamberlain's Company, i, in, 9, 
10, i4n, 25, 170 

Chanfrau, 158 

Chapman, 2n, i32n 

Charke, Charlotte, 142 

Charles the Eighth, 86n 

Chatham Theatre, The, 157 

Chestnut Street Theatre (Phila.), 
147 

Chettle, i2n 

Chevy Chase, i2Sn 

Children of the Chapel, i4n 

Chock, Miss, 95 

Cibber, Colley, 67, 7in, loi, io4n, 
108, ii7n, 121, 126, i26n, 131, 
13s, 138, 142, ISO, 160, 161, 162, 
163, i63n, 169, 170; version of 
Richard the Third, 76-100 ; Kem- 
ble's revision, 11 3-4; Macready's 
rearrangement, 123-4; Charles 
Kean on, 128; Forrest's revision, 
154; Mansiield's revision, 164 

Cibber, Theophilus, loon 

Cibber, Mrs. T., 92n, 93n, 107 



Citizen, The, 145 

City Customs, Interlude of, g^n 

Civil Wars between the Houses of 
York and Lancaster, loon 

Clarkson, 139 

Clinton's Thespians, 143, 144, 145 

Clive, Mrs., 93n 

Comical Gallant, The, yyn 

Comus, 113 

Conquest of Granada, 'The, 71 

Contention between the Houses of 
York and Lancaster, The, etc.; 
the First Part, 7, 9, i3n, i7n, 29, 
Sin, 53n; the Second Part, or The 
True Tragedy of the Duke of 
York, 7, 9, 10, i4n, 15, i6n, i7n, 
29, Sin, 53n, ssn 

Cooke, George F., iion, iii, 112, 
ii2n, ii7n, 118, 128, 148, 149, 
iSin, 152, 159; as Richard the 
Third, no; compared with Ed- 
mund Kean, 11 5-6; in America, 
150-1 

Cooper, Thomas A., 148, i48n, 149, 
14911 

Coriolanus, 13 in 

Covent Garden, 98, 105, 106, 107, 
io7n, no, 112, ii2n, ii8n, 121, 
122, i25n, i32n, 147, isin 

Crampton, Charlotte, iS7 

Crofts, 102 

Cross Keys, The, i3n 

Crowne, John, 78, 86n, 170 

Cruger's Wharf Theatre, 139 

Curtain, The, 7, 9, 10, i2n, i4n 

Cushman, Charlotte, i54n 

Cymbeline ; D'Urfey's version, 62n ; 
Garrick's version, i4on 

Damon and Phillida, 136, 139 
D'Avenant, 62n, 70, 71, 73, 74, 87n, 

170 
Davenport, Mrs., 156; Miss J. M., 

IS6 
David and Bathseba, i3n, 39, 40 
Davies, Mrs., 107 
Davis, Mrs., 137 
Davis, Mary, 71 
Day, John, i2n 
Delane, 102 



181 



Delavigne, Casimir, 13211 

Derby's Company, 1211 

Desordre et Genie, 115, iisn. 

Destruction of Jerusalem, The, 6 

Devil to Pay, 93, 139 

Dido, 14x1 

Dighton, 9911 

Doctor Faustus, 1311, 18, i8n, 19, 

1911, 30, 63 
Don Felix, 10511 
Dorset Garden, 62n 
Douglas, 15s, iSSn, isSn 
Douglass, 140, 141. 14211 
Douglass, Mrs., see Mrs. Hallam 
Drury Lane Theatre, 62n, 69, 73, 77, 
9on, 93, 95, 97, 97", 98, 99, loon, 
105, 106, io7n, 108, no. III, 114, 
119, ii9n, 120, 122, 124, i2Sn, 
129, i32n, 138, 141, 147, is6n, 
iS7n 
Dryden, 62, 71, 77n, i24n 
Duff, 151 
Duke's Theatre, see Lincoln's Inn 

Fields 
Dunstall, 102 
D'Urfey, 62n 
Duvall, Madam, 102 

Eastward Hoe, 2n 

Edgar or The English Monarch, 62W, 

63 

Edward the First, i3n, 15, isn, i7n, 

22, 27, 29, 31, 57 
Edward the Second, 14x1, 19, 27, 31, 

34, 35, 54 
Edward the Third, gn, i4n, isn, 16, 

17", 31, 52 

Edward the Fourth, 3, i2n, 78, 85, 
99n 

Egerton, 124 

Elliston, 122, is6n 

Enfants d'Edouard, Les, i32n 

England's Parnassus, 2 

English Princess, The, 60, 62, 69, 
70, 71, 72, 7211, 73, 74, 78, 78n, 
81, 8in, 82, 86, 86n, 87, 87", 88, 
88n, 92, 93, 166, 168; resume, 
64-S ; general characteristics, 65- 
7 ; Betterton in, 67-8 

Eugenia, 89n 



Evans, 95 

Every Man in His Humour, 53 

Fairbank, 95 

Fair Em, 1311 

Famous Victories of Henry the 
Fifth, The, 12, i3n, 16, i6n, i7n, 
19, 22, 29, 32 

Fatal Vision, The, 92 

Fate of Tyranny, The, 145 

Faucit, Miss, 118 

Faucit, Mrs., i24n 

Fechter, i32n 

Fennell, 147, 149, 149", iS^ 

Fielding, Henry, 143 

First of May or a Royal Love- 
Mat ch. The, i32n 

Fisher, Clara, i56n 

Foote, 141 

Ford, 60 

Forrest, Edwin, iSsn, 158, 159, 165; 
as Richard the Third, 152-3 ; ver- 
sion of Richard the Third, 154 

Fortune Theatre, The, i2n, 6in 

Franklin Theatre, 156 

Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, i3n 

Froment, Mons., 102 

Garrick, 87n, 92n, 93n, 99, 99n, 
115, ii7n, 120, i2in, i3on, 132, 
138, i4on, 141, 142, i45n, 147, 
167, 168; his Richard modelled 
on Ryan's, 98, gSn ; characteris- 
tics of his Richard, 10 1-9 

Generous Choise, The, 97x1 

George a Green, isn 

Giffard, 102; W., 102; Mrs., 102, 
106 

Gildon, 77n 

Glenn, 158 

Glover, Mrs., 118 

Godfrey, Thomas, i4on 

Goodfellow, 106 

Goodman's Fields Theatre, 99n, loi, 

los, 138 
Gorboduc, 12, i2n, 34, 37, 49 
Granier, Miss, 102 
Greene, George, 6, 12, 20, 30 

Hackett, James H., iS7 



182 



Hallam, A., 139 

Hallam, Lewis, 9911, 138, 139; Mrs,, 

139, 141 
Hallam, Lewis, Jr., 138, 139, 140, 

141, 145, 146 
Hamblin, 154 
Hamlet, 30, 31, 49, 5611, 5811, 86, 

120, 14011, 15811, 159, 168 
Harlequin Collector, 139 
Harlequin's Vagaries, 14011 
Harman, 139; Mrs., 139, 142 
Harper, 147 
Harris, 68, 74 
Hathaway, Annie, 156 
Have With You to Saffron Walden, 

6n 
Haymarket Theatre, 97, 97n, ii8n 
Henderson, 106, 109 
Henry the Fourth, 62n, 77n, 87, 

i4on, 142 
Henry the Fifth, 3n, i6n, 45, 54, 

57, 77n, 86, i2sn 
Henry the Fifth (Orrery's), 62, 74 
Henry the Sixth, Part I, 7, 10, i3n, 

i4n, i6n, i7n, 40, sin, 53, 78, 

81, i32n. Part II, isn, i7n, 34, 

Sin, 69, 78, 87, i32n. Part III, 

IS, i6n, 39, sin, 53, 69, 80, i32n, 

170 
Henry the Sixth (Crowne's), Part 

I, 78, 170. Part II or The 

Misery of Civil War, 60, 62n, 69, 

69n, 80, 170 
Henry the Eighth, S7, 74, 77n, 108, 

III 
Henrye Richmond, iin 
Herbert, 137 
Herod the Great, 86n 
Herring, Mrs., 156; Fanny, 156, 

i58n 
Heywood, Thomas, 3, 6, i2n, 48, 78, 

85, 93", 99n 
Hieronimo, First Part of, i3n, 31, 

49 
Hill, Aaron, 92, 143 
Hill, Isabel, i32n 
Hippisley, Miss, 102 
Histriomastix, 30, 45 
Hob in the Well, i43n 
Hodgkinson, John, 146, 147, 148, 

149 



Holland, 1054 George, is8n 
Hopkins, Charles, 62 
Horestes, 12, i2n, 13, 50 
Horton, Mrs,, gSn, 107 
Howard, Sir Robert, 170 
Humour of the Age, The, 93n 

Indian Queen, The, 70, 71 
Innocent Usurper or Lady Jane 

Grey, The, 62n 
Iron Age, The, 3 
Iron Chest, The, 120 
Irving, Sir Henry, 107, 108, 132, 

153, 159, 161, i63n, 168; version 

of Richard the Third, 129—30; as 

Richard, 130-1 
Island Queens, The {Albion Queens), 

620. 

Jack Straw, i3n, i6n, i7n 

Jago, 136 

James the Fourth, i4n, i6n, i7n, 

S6n 
Jane Shore, loon, ii2n 
Jewess, The, 12s 
Jew of Malta, The, i^n, 18, i8n, 

19, ign, 23, 30, SS 
Jew of Malta, The {Merchant of 

Venice), yyn. 
Jocasta, 12, i2n 
John Street Theatre, The, 140, 143, 

146, 148 
Jones, Master, iss; Mrs., 155 
Jones, George (Count Joannes),. 

i52n, IS7, 161 
Jonson, Ben, iin, 48, S3 

Kean, Charles, 107, i29n, 132, 154, 
i6on; production of Richard the- 
Third, 126-8. 

Kean, Edmund, 42n, ssn, iii, 128, 
130, 132, 149, ISO, iS2n, 154, 
iS6n, IS7, IS9, 167, 168; as 
Richard the Third, 114-121; com- 
pared with Macready, 122-3 ; ii^ 
America, isi ; compared with J. 
B. Booth, 152 

Kean, Thomas, 135 

Keene, J. W., 164 

Kemble, Charles, i32n, 159" 



183 



Kemble, John Philip, io8n, 115, 
11511, 116, 118, 119, iign, 123, 
127, 132, 146, 147, 149, 14911, 
150, isin, 15911, 160, 168; as 
Richard the Third, 109-110; ar- 
cheological reforms, 111-112; re- 
vision of Gibber version, 11 3-1 14 

Kempe, 3 

Kent, 95 

King Arthur (Dryden's), 62 

King Arthur (Purcell's), 93n 

King Edgar and Alfrida, 6211 

King in the Country, The, ggn 

King Johan, 1.2x1, 13, 37 

King John, 39 

King's Players, The (King Charles 
I), 94" 

Knack to Know a Knave, The, i4n 

Knight, 95 

Koster and Bial's Theatre, 158 

Kyd, Thomas, i3n, 14, 20, 21, 23, 
30, 46, 166, 167 

Lacey, 77n 

Lamball, Mrs., 99n 

Landis, Dr., 157 

Lansdowne, Lord, 77n 

Law Against Lovers, The, 170 

Lear, King, 29, 62n, 120, i39n, 
i4on, 168, 169 

Lear, King (Tate's), 62n, 77n, 83n, 
170 

Leir, King, i^n 

Le Kain, 115 

Lethe, 138, i43n 

Lewis, Mrs. H., 156 

Lincoln's Inn Fields (Duke's Thea- 
tre), 62n, 68, 69, 71, 78, 95, 98, 
104, i25n 

Lindar, 97n 

Little French Lawyer, The, 3 

Locrine, i3n, 16, i6n, i7n, 20, 21, 
23n, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, Sm, 
S3, 56n 

Lodge, Thomas, 6, 48 

Looking Glass for London, A, 70 

Lord Flinnip, 15611 

Love and Honor, 74 

Love for Love, 136, 142 

Love Makes a Man, gyxi 



Loves of King Edward the Fourth, 

The, 99n 
Loyal General, The, 4 
London Lyceum, The, 129, 13 in, 161 
Lying Valet, The, 143 

Macbeth, 49, 6in, io4n, 109, iii, 

i4on, I49n, i5on, I58n, 169, 170; 

as opera, 62n 
Macklin, 104, io4n, 106, iii, 119 
Macready, 60, 118, ii8n, i29n, 161; 

as Richard the Third, 121, 125; 

compared with E. Kean, 122-3 ; 

revision of Gibber's text, 123-4 
Mad Hercules, i6n 
Malone, 139 

Man About Town, The, 157 
Manfred, i58n 
Mangeon, Master, 155 
Mansfield, Richard, 164 
Massacre at Paris, The, i^n, 31, 34n 
Mayor of Garratt, The, 143 
Manning, 97n 
Marlowe, in, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, i8n, 

19, 20, 2on, 21, 22, 23, 29, 34, 

42, SI, 166, 167, 169 
Marr, 102 
Marshall, 102 
Marston, Henry, 128 
Marston, John, 2n 
Massinger, i24n 
Matthews, Gharles, ii3n 
McGullough, J., 164 
McGutcheon, T., 157 
McWade, R., 158 
Measure for Measure, 170 
Medecin Malgre Lui, Le, 93n 
Meggett, ii8n 
Melmoth, Mrs., 147 
Merchant of Venice, lo^n, losn, 119, 

120, 138, i38n, i4on; revised as 

The Jew of Malta, yyn 
Merry, Mrs. (Elizabeth Brunton), 

14711 
Merry Wives of Windsor, The, 77n 
Metamora, 153 

Midsummer Night's Dream, The, 30 
Miller, 139 
Mills, 95, 97n 



184 



Misfortunes of Arthur, The, 12, 1211, 

46, 47, s6n 
Miss in her Teens, 141 
Mitchell, William, isSn 
Mitchell's Olympic, 158 
Mock Doctor, The, 136 
Mollison, William, 168, 169 
Moody, 128 
Morris, D. L., 158 
Morris, Mrs., 142 
Mossop, 105, 106, io6n, 10711 
Much Ado about Nothing, i4on, 170 
Murphy, 106, 145 
Murray, 135; Master Dickey, 136 

Nash, Thomas, 6n, 7, 12 

Nassau Street Theatre, The, 134, 

136, 139, 148, iS5n 
Naylor, 102; Miss, 102 
Newington Butts, 9 
Neu Stadt Theatre, 157 
New Way to Pay Old Debts, A, 120, 

159 
Niblo's Garden, 13 in, iS4n, 160, 

163 
Nobody and Somebody, i4n 
Norris, 97n 

Oedipus, 38, 38n 

Old Wives' Tale, An, 47, 48 

Orphan, The, i38n 

Orrery, Earl of, Charles Boyle, 62, 

86n 
Othello, 120, 139, i4on, 142, isSn, 

168 
Otway, Thomas, i38n 

Pageant of the Shearmen and Tay- 
lors, 30, 3on 

Pagett, 102 

Palsgrave's Company, i2n, 6 in, 94n 

Papal Tyranny, 95 

Parasitaster or the Fawne, zn 

Park Theatre, The, 148, i48n, 15 in, 
152, 154, i54n> 155, 155", 156, 
158 

Patterson, 102 

Payne, John Howard, 155, issn 

Peele, George, 3, 6, 20 

Pembroke's Company, y, 9, 10, i4n 

Perkin Warbeck, 61 



Phelps, Samuel, 125, i25n, 126, 132, 

160, 161 
Philadelphia Comedians, The, 137, 

i38n 
Pinketham, 97n 
Pix, Mrs., 62 
Plunkett, 118 
Poetaster, The, 48 
Polly Honeycomb, i43n 
Porter, Mrs., 98n 
Possard, 157 
Powel, 95 

Powell, 147; Mrs., 95, iii 
Prince Charles' Men, 94n 
Prince of Parthia, The, i^on 
Pritchard, Mrs., 106, 107, 156 
Promos and Cassandra, i7n 
Puttenham, 102 

Queen Catherine or the Ruins of 

Love, 62 
Queen's Players, The, 7, 8, 10, i3n, 

i4n 
Quinn, 94, 97n, 98, 102, 104, 105, 

106, 107, i2in, 141 ; as Richard 

the Third, 99, xoon 

Ravenscroft, Edward, 62, 77n 
Recruiting Officer, The, i38n 
Red Bull, The, 94n 
Reddish, 106 

Return from Parnassus, The, 3 
Richard Crookback, iin 
Richard der Dritte, 132x1 
Richard, Duke of York, 13211 
Richard Number Three, 158, i58n 
Richard the Confessor, 8, 10 
Richard the Second, 80, i32n; 

Tate's version, 62n 
Richard the Third, see Shakespeare, 

Cibber, Forrest, E. Kean, J. P. 

Kemble, Macready, Mansfield ; 

Booth's version, see E. Booth ; 

Irving's version, see Irving 
Richard the Third in Dutch, 158 
Richard the Third or The English 

Prophet, i2n, 61, 78, 93n 
Richardus Tertius, 5, 6, 6n, ion, 

i2n, i6n, 29, 29n, 38, 39, 41, 43, 

46, SO, 53, 54", 84, 84n, 166 



185 



Richelieu, 159 

Rigby, 139; Mrs,, 139 

Rogers, 95 

Romeo and Juliet, 14x1, 5711, 9311, 
13911, 14011, is8n; Howard's ver- 
sion, 170 

Rose Theatre, The, 7, 9, 10, 1411 

Rowe, Nicholas, 97n, loon, 143 

Rowley, Samuel, 1211, 1911, '61, 78, 
93n 

Royal Merchant, The, 9311 

Royal Princess's Theatre, The, 126, 
i29n 

Ryan, 97n, 98, gSn, 104, 105, 107, 
ii7n 

Ryan, Dennis, 145 

Rymer, Thomas, 62, 63, 6sn, 66n 

Sadler's Wells Theatre, 125, i25n, 

128, 129, 160 
Sandford, 91, 95 
Savage, loon 
Sawney the Scott (Taming of the 

Shrew), yyn 
School Boy, The, 93n, 97n 
Scourge of Villanie, The, 2n 
Search for Money, The, i9n 
Selimus, i3n, 16, 20, 21, 38, 40 
Seymour, H., 157 
Shakespeare, passim 
Sheep Shearing, see Winter's Tale, 

The 
Sheridan, 105, 106, io6n, 107 
Shore's Wife, 1211 
Siddons, Mrs., 107, io7n, iii, ii2n, 

iiSn, 142, 147, 149, i49n, isin 
Siege of Rhodes, The, 70 
Simpson, 95 
Singleton, 139 
Sir Thomas More, 14x1, i7n, 42, 

44, 53n 
Smith, E. T,, 105, 106, io6n, io7n 
Smith (a contemporary of Better- 
ton), 68 
Smith, Master G. F., 155 
Solyman and Perseda, i3n, 56 
Southwark Theatre, The, 140, 141 
Spanish Tragedy, The, iin, i3n, 20, 

27, 34, 38, 44, 46, 47 
Steel, Mrs., 102, 106 
Storer, Miss, 141 



Strange's Company, 9, 10, i3n, i4n 
Strappado for the Divell, 3 
Sullivan, Barry, 129 
Sussex' Company, 8, 10, i4n 

Tamhurlaine, i3n, 14, i6n, 18, i8n, 
19, i9n, 20, 2on, 21, 27, 29, 30, 
31, 3in, 32, 39, SI, Sin, 62 

Tamerlane (Rowe's), 143 

Taming of the Shrew, The, jyn, 93n 

Tancred and Gismunda, 12, 34, 39, 
55, 56n 

Taste, 141 

Taswell, 9gn 

Tate, Nahum, 4, 62n, 77n, 170 

Taylor, Mrs., 136 

Tammany Theatre, 157, 158 

Tem.pest, The, 68, i58n, 170; 
D'Avenant's version, 73 

Thalia Theatre, see Bowery Thea- 
tre 

Theatre, The, 7, 8, g, 10, i3n, i4n, 
25, 36, 58 

Theatre Comique (New York), 158 

Theatre Frangais, 120 

Theatre Porte Saint-Martin, iisn 

Theatre Royal, see Drury Lane 

Thomas, 95 

Titus Andronicus, i4n, 34, 4Sn ; 
Ravenscroft's version, 77n 

Tom Thumb, 143 

Tomlinson, Mrs., 143 

Troas, The, 38 

Troublesome Reign of King John, 
The, i3n, 15, isn, 16, i6n, 22, 
55n, 57 

True Tragedy of the Duke of York, 
The, see Contention, the Second 
Part. 

True Tragedy of Richard the Third, 
The, in, 7, 10, i4n, 16, i7n, 2on, 
21, 29, 33, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 52n, 
53, 54, 58, 78, 166 

Troilus and Cressida (Dryden's), 
77n 

Unhappy Favorite or the Earl of 

Essex, The, 62x1, 69, 74n 
Union Square Theatre, The, 158 
Upton, R., 137 



186 



Vandenhoff, 11711 
Vaughan, 102 
Villiers, Mrs., 14911 
Virgin Martyr, The, 72 
Virgin Unmasked, The, 102 
Virtue Betrayed or Anna Bullen, 
62x1 

Wall, 144 ; Mrs., 144 

Wallacks, The, 164 

Ward, Mrs., iii 

Warner, Mrs,, 12611 

Warner, Neil, 161 

Warning for Fair Women, A, 44, 

47, 48, 49 
Weisse, C. F., i32n 
What You Will, 2n 
Whitlock, Mrs., 147, i49n 
Wignell, 147, 148, 149 



Wilkes, 93, 94, 97, 97n 
Williams, H. A., 156; Mrs., 156 
Winter's Tale, A (Sheep Shearing), 

107 
Wit's Miserie, 48, 49n 
Woffington, Peg, 93n, losn, 107 
Woodstock, i4n, 27, 34, 35, 46, 46n, 

47n 
Wounds of Civil War, The, i^n, 16, 

46, 47, sin 
Wroughton, 120 
Wynell, 137 

Ximena, g6r\. 

Yates, ii3n, 124x1; Mrs., 102 
Young, Charles, 118 

Zara, 143 



THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 

STUDIES IN ENGLISH 

Joseph Glanvill 

A Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth Century 

By Ferris Green slet, Ph.D., 

Cloth, i2mo pp. xi -|- 235 $1.50 net 

The Elizabethan L3n:ic 

By John Erskine, Ph.D., 

Cloth, i2mo pp. xvi -|- 344 $1.50 net 

Classical Echoes in Tennyson 

By Wilfred P. Mustard, Ph.D., 

Cloth, 121110 pp. xvi -J- 164 $1.25 net 

Byron and Byronism in America 

By William Ellery Leonard, Ph.D., 

Paper, 8vo pp. vi -\- 126 $1.00 net 

Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature 

By Margaret Ball, Ph.D., 

Paper, 8vo pp. x-|-i88 $1.00 net 

The Early American Novel 

By LiLLiE Deming Loshe, Ph.D., 

Paper, Svo pp. vii -|- 131 $1.00 net 

Studies in New England Transcendentalism 

By Harold C. Goddard, Ph.D., 

Paper, Svo pp. x 4-217 $1.00 net 

A Study of Shelley's Drama "The Cenci" 

By Ernest Sutherland Bates, Ph.D., 

Paper, Svo pp. ix-|-i03 $1.00 net 

Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance 

By Samuel Marion Tucker, Ph.D., 
Paper, Svo pp. xi + 245 $1.00 net 

The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in 

English 

By Jacob Zeitlin, Ph.D., 

Paper, Svo pp. yni-\-i77 $1.00 net 

Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Theater 

By Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D., 

Cloth, Svo pp. vii -j- 259 $1.25 net 

The Stage History of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third 

By Alice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D., 

Cloth, Svo $1.25 net 

The Macmillan Company, Agents, 66 Fifth Avenue, New York 



c^ .^. 






^0 



» <;K a. 



4 o^ 



^0 









^^ 



.40 



4 o^ 






.^ 



0' 



1 » .Vv^ 












A 



A^ 






.0^ 












<5> 



^^..^^ /J 



G' 







.^^ 



.^^ 



0- 



G^ O 'o.*'' A. ^^ 



^. 






.^'\,^ 



^0 



.^^ 



^0 



V'^ ^^^MM^^o <^<S^ "" V^C^^^ " V^ ~' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

■ ^' ' - - ^ » .^ '^ " f^sutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

'?>. ^ \ Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 



llUlinilllll:^-.- " S *J^ 





,-^^ 



'^ ^ \ Treatment Date: Feb. 2009 

^ ° "" .^ '^^ PreservationTechnologit 

" '"^^^^^^ * '''°'""'' "-""E" '" COLLECTIONS PRESERVAT 

° ^'^V^^^^a^ "" ^^^ Thomson Park Drive 

' /^[3^^fe> *" Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

^ W^lB,^?^ ' (724)779-2111 







o > 

.0 -^^ 




^ c 



"o 



A^ c ° " " « ^ 



.-^^ 




^^ 









.^'^ 













^^-^^^ 




^' •— - ^. .^ .'^', \^/ ,^, ^«^^^* :^\ X, 




' t ., M 



J Si • / . ^ ^ 

"h I ^ > *. 
>. ' ^ >*■ 



M: 






«J M.I i 



' 1\ * 






V ' "^ ''i 



